Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Morecambe Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

South Suburban Gas Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 6th July, and agreed to.

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Company Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORDER PAPERS.

Sir SYDNEY HENN: May I ask you, Sir, whether as there were no Order Papers available for hon. Members
either in the Members' Lobby or in the Vote office we may, for the benefit of those hon. Members who have not Order Papers, have each question read out before it is answered?

Mr. HARRIS: I believe the Order Papers are now available. They have became available since you took the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member can now obtain a copy.

Sir S. HENN: I have been this minute to the Vote Office, and there are none available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether full pension is paid in every case to a widow if the certificate of death of her husband shows that he died of a disability resulting from his war service or the recognised sequel of such a disability.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The conditions under which full pensions may be granted to widows of pensioners are set out in the relevant articles of the Royal Warrant. The death certificate, while important as evidence, is necessarily not the sole factor in determining whether in fact, and to what extent, death was the direct results of war service.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Minister tell me whether the certificate to which I refer would be taken into account?

Major TRYON: The certificate would certainly be regarded as very important evidence.

MEDICAL TREATMENT.

Mr. STEPHEN: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions what remedy an ex-service man has when he is recommended by the Ministry for treatment at home by his panel doctor and the panel doctor cer-
tifies that treatment by the Ministry is necessary.

Major TRYON: Where it had been decided that a case was either not eligible for or did not require such a course of treatment as is provided by the Ministry of Pensions, the case would fall to be dealt with under the ordinary arrangements available to insured persons under the National Health Insurance Acts.

Mr. STEPHEN: If the Minister decides that treatment is not possible and the man's panel doctor considers that treatment by the Ministry is necessary, what step has the man then to take? What has he to do in view of the conflict of evidence?

Major TRYON: It is quite clear that the Ministry cannot accept the doctrine that a panel doctor can decide for them. If the man has a grievance against the panel doctor, the normal course would be for him to make an application to the insurance committee.

Mr. STEPHEN: But supposing the man has no grievance against his panel doctor, supposing he considers that the advice of his panel doctor is right, is there not a medical referee whose opinion the Ministry and the panel doctor can be asked to accept? If there is not, will the Minister set up such a referee?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. The ordinary course must be followed. The case would be considered by the doctors of the Ministry of Pensions, whose opinions must necessarily decide the action to be taken by the Ministry.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does the Minister say that the doctors of the Ministry must be the final arbiters in spite of the fact that equally eminent or more eminent medical men may say that the man ought to have treatment?

Major TRYON: No, Sir; the point is that the Ministry of Pensions must decide its own policy, and not the panel doctor.

Mr. HARRIS: When doctors disagree, would it not be possible to have an independent opinion from a specialist, because it is notorious that doctors often differ on medical points?

TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions why treatment allowances have been refused to Mr. J. McGuire, of 20, Morley Road, Barking, and his wife and child; and whether he is aware that Mr. McGuire has been in receipt of treatment allowances for the past seven years, and is at present undergoing treatment, and is in an advanced stage of tuberculosis, and that the reduction of his weekly income from £2 17s. 6d. a week to £2 a week will necessitate his going without the nourishing food that he requires?

Major TRYON: In the case referred to, which, in accordance with the usual practice, was dealt with in consultation with the local tuberculosis officer, it was found that the pensioner was no longer in receipt of any course of treatment which admitted of the payment of allowances under the Warrant. The assessment of the case was, however, reviewed and the man's pension was raised to the rate or 100 per cent.

Mr. ROBERTS: Will my right hon. Friend make a few further inquiries into this case to see whether the treatment ought not to be continued?

Major TRYON: I shall be very happy to inquire into the case.

Mr. SCURR: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, owing to the reduction of the number of area war pensions offices and the difficulty pensioners have in obtaining treatment, sometimes waiting six days, he will arrange that, in cases where treatment allowances are payable, they shall be paid from the date of application for treatment and not from the day that the pensioner is seen by a medical officer of the Ministry of Pensions?

Major TRYON: I know of no grounds for the suggestion in the first part of the question. Indeed, the waiting period for admission to hospital has actually been reduced. In any case, however, where exceptional delay should occur and it is desirable in the interests of the course of treatment to be given that the man should abstain from work pending admission to hospital, it has always been the practice to pay such allowances as from the first
pay day following the man's medical examination. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.

SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT.

Mr. STEPHEN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of claims for pension that were rejected last year owing to the operation of the seven years' limit?

Major TRYON: The information is not available, as no separate record is kept of applications of this or any other class which, for various reasons, are not proceeded with.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it the fact that in the Ministry they have no statistics at all on this matter? Is there not a record of the number of claims for each district and each town?

Major TRYON: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there not information approximating to it so that we may have some idea of the number of claims rejected through the operation of the seven years' limit?

Major TRYON: No, Sir, we have no record of cases which are decided to be outside the scope of the terms laid down by Parliament.

EAST METROPOLITAN AREA (ADMINISTRATION.)

Mr. SCURR: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions what areas will be included in the East Metropolitan war pension area; whether it is proposed to close the war pension office at Stepney; where the new area office will be situated; what whole-or part-time offices will be closed or have the hours of opening reduced; and whether he will make provision for the payment of travelling expenses for pensioners living more than three miles from the area war pension office when they have to attend that office?

Major TRYON: Arrangements are contemplated for the transaction of business of the Stepney, Chelmsford and Hackney areas at a new central office in the City Road. The Stepney War Pensions Committee has already been consulted and
has approved the arrangement, and the other committees concerned have the master under consideration. The sub-offices necessary will be settled after consultation with the War Pensions Committees concerned. The circumstances do not call for any change in the existing arrangements for the payment of travelling expenses.

Mr. THURTLE: Did the Minister say there was to be a new office in the City Road?

Major TRYON: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the expenses of travelling from some remote parts of Hackney to the City Road, will not some allowance be made?

Major TRYON: Reasonable travelling expenses are paid, and there is no minimum distance. I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion that no allowance should be paid unless the distance is over three miles.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: If the two other local committees do not agree to this change, will the Minister confirm it?

Major TRYON: I will take into consideration any representations made to me, but I cannot undertake to maintain offices if they are found to be unnecessary after consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS: If the local committees feel the step is not necessary, will you then pay some regard to their decision?

Major TRYON: I cannot admit that the local committee can decide; they may make representations, which I shall be happy to consider.

LIEUT.-COLONEL G. M. MCLOUGHLIN.

Major COHEN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lieutenant-Colonel G. M. McLoughlin, T.D., is in receipt of a pension based on the rank of a captain, in spite of the fact that he holds a commission appointing him to the rank of lieutenant-colonel dated 17th September, 1926; that Lieutenant-Colonel McLoughlin was officer-commanding the 20th battalion Cheshire Regiment from I7th September, 1926, to 12th July, 1927, and from 17th August,
1919, holding the position of area commandant in various places, holding the rank of lieutenant-colonel all the time; and if he will state the grounds on which it was decided to award a lieutenant-colonel holding a commission for that rank the pension of a lower rank?

Major TRYON: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply. The facts in this case, which are not quite correctly stated in the question, are as follows. Lieutenant-Colonel McLoughlin held the substantive rank of captain. The temporary rank of lieutenant-colonel conferred on him with effect from the 17th September, 1916, whilst commanding a battalion, was relinquished on the 13th July, 1917, and was so notified in the "London Gazette." The officer was demobilised on the 2nd August, 1919. The temporary commission referred to, which was issued to this officer on the 30th October, 1916, was, I am informed by the War Office, issued in error and was in the circumstances neither necessary nor admissible. The officer has been pensioned in the rank appropriate to the information supplied to me by the War Office and the position has been fully explained to him both by that Department and by the Ministry.

Major COHEN: Is it not a fact, nevertheless, that this officer does hold a commission of the rank of lieutenant-colonel and if the War Office has made a mistake should not the War Office abide by it?

Major TRYON: I do not think that a pension can be justly founded on what is admittedly a mistake.

HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE (W. H. JACOBS).

Mr. GROVES: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the pensions issue office at Bromyard Avenue, Acton, isued a letter, dated 4th July, 1928, in reference to William H. Jacobs, 113, Stanley Road, Stratford, E.15, late No. 11/M 351,135, Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, who is at present an inmate of the Whipps Cross Hospital; that the man is in receipt of a war pension of 35s. per week; that the letter to the wife of this man stated that 26s. 3d. a week is being stopped from the husband's pension to meet the cost of his maintenance in the hospital; and that
his department issued to the wife only 8s. 9d. for the week ended 4th July; and, as the rent payable is 5s. 1d. per week, leaving only 3s. 8d. per week for the wife's maintenance, will he reconsider this case?

Major TRYON: I find that in the case referred to the pensioner is receiving treatment for a disability unconnected with his war service and that the guardians have, as they are entitled to do, claimed that the cost of his maintenance should be repaid to them out of his pension. It is within the power of the guardians to reduce the charge so made if the circumstances of the case justify it, and, if the hon. Member will furnish me with full particulars such as will enable me to represent the case to the guardians, I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the conditions in respect to the payment of pensions laid down that any person entering such an institution for medical or surgical treatment shall not have his pension touched for twelve weeks, that that is a Treasury regulation, and will he kindly take the steps indicated—and I will let him have what particulars I can?

Major TRYON: I shall be very happy to take the steps which I have promised after the hon. Member has communicated with me.

Mr. GROVES: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman acquaint the Minister of Health, whose Department is doing this with the facts of this case?

STABILISATION.

Mr. COMPTON (for Mr. DENNISON): 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions if it is proposed to repeal Article 24a of the Royal Warrant of 1919 and stabilise pensions at the present rates, seeing that the fall of the cost-of-living figures below 60 is unlikely?

Major TRYON: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Clifton Brown) on the 23rd May, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. HAYES: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to state the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the matter of the two constables who arrested Sir Leo Money and Miss Savidge in Hyde Park?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Kingston-upon-Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Mr. HAYES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when I might put this question down again, and when he will be able to give me an answer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think on Monday, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

FOREIGN LANGUAGES.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state, in view of the increasing importance of the study of foreign languages, what facilities, for which his Department is responsible, at present exist whereby British students may take language courses abroad at small expense; how many educational institutions have arrangements with foreign institutions for the interchange of students; and will he state to what extent these various facilities were made use of during the last educational year?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the reply to this question is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:—

Under the convention between the Board of Education and the French Ministry of Public Instruction, a full account of which was given in Chapter X of the Board's Annual Report for 1924–25, a number of young English teachers and intending teachers of French are appointed to schools and colleges in France, receiving free board and lodging in return for 12 hours' conversa-
tion lessons per week; for the rest of the time they are free to pursue their own studies in the schools and elsewhere. The numbers holding such appointments are stated each year in the Board's Report; in 1926–27 there were 14 men and 40 women. In addition, periods of study abroad, assisted by grant under the Regulations, may be taken by intending teachers either as part of their degree courses or as supplementary courses, and by acting teachers through the medium of assisted studentships. During 1926–27 30 students at university training departments took part of their courses abroad, and two took supplementary courses. During the current year 11 assisted studentships were awarded, of which five were for study abroad. It is also open to holders of State scholarships to undertake a period of study abroad where such a period forms an integral part of their university course.

TRAINING COLLEGES.

Mr. HARRIS: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many training colleges for teachers have been closed during recent years, and what are their names; whether the closure of other trailing colleges is pending; if so, whether it is possible to give the names of the colleges; what is the present accommodation of the training colleges; what is the accommodation for residential and day students, respectively; and whether, having regard to the increasing number of students in training for three and four years instead of two years, there has been during recent years any substantial reduction in the number of teachers annually completing their training?

Lord E. PERCY: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In the last five years two training colleges—Bristol Municipal College of Domestic Subjects and Sheffield College of Domestic Science—have been closed, and the closure of two others—Manchester City Training College and the Home and Colonial College at Wood Green—is pending. The approved number of recognised students in University Training Departments and Technical Col-
leges for the current year is 17,332, of which 12,383 are resident and 4,749 are day students. In addition, it is open to each college to admit private (i.e., non-aided) students at its discretion, provided that the total number of students, recognised and private, does not exceed the capacity of the college to make satisfactory provision for their accommodation, instruction and training. There has been no reduction in recent years in the number of students annually completing their training, the figures for the last four years being:


1923–1924
…
…
…
7,659


1924–1925
…
…
…
7,753


1925–1926
…
…
…
7,789


1926–1927
…
…
…
7,981

EDUCATIONAL VISITS.

Mr. HARRIS: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools have recognised as educational visits the attendance of parties of school children at the Naval and Military Tournament, London, and the Royal Air Force Display, Hendon; whether such visits have taken place this year or last year; and whether the Board have received any representations on the subject?

Lord E. PERCY: The approval of educational visits by public elementary school children during school hours is given by His Majesty's Inspectors under Article 21 (a) of the Code and no record of such visits is kept in my Department. As regards the last part of the question, I have received representations on the subject of attendance at the Royal Air Force Display.

Mr. HARRIS: Was the representation for or against the teachers?

Lord E. PERCY: The representation which I received from one set of people was against.

OFFICERS' TRAINING AND CADET CORPS.

Mr. HARRIS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education are consulted when Officers' Training Corps are instituted in connection with schools on the Board's grant list; whether the Board have any information as to the number of Officers' Training Corps or Cadet Corps, respec-
tively, attached to schools on the Board's grant list; whether any instructions have been issued by the Board as to the relations between an Officers' Training Corps or Cadet Corps and the school organisation; and, particularly, whether activities in connection with such bodies should be arranged outside the ordinary school hours?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I understand that 69 grant-aided secondery schools in England and Wales have contingents of the Junior Division of the Officers' Training Corps, and 106 have Cadet Corps. As regards the last part, I have no reason to suppose that it is the practice to carry on the work of these corps at times which involve any material interference with the ordinary school instruction.

SCHOOL LEAVING ACE, DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of boys who left school in Durham County on reaching the age of 14 years or upwards during the years 1925, 1926, and 1927?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: As the reply to this question is statistical in character, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The numbers of boys who left public elementary schools in Durham County for reasons other than further full-time instruction, on reaching the age of 14 and upwards, during the years ended 31st March, 1925, 1S26, and 1927, respectively were:


—
14 and under 15.
15 and under 16.
16 and over.
Total.


1925
…
7,083
64
13
7,160


1926
…
6,794
69
8
6,871


1927
…
6,749
144
29
6,922

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM (PAMPHLET).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to adopt the recommendation contained in the Report of the Com-
mittee on Education in Industry that a short handbook should be published descriptive of the educational system in England and Wales?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir, a short descriptive pamphlet is being prepared.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF, METROPOLITAN UNIONS.

Miss LAWRENCE (for Mr. LANSBURY): 28.
asked the Minister

In receipt of Institutional Relief.
In receipt of Domiciliary Relief.


Name of Poor Law Union.
Number of men not suffering from sickness, accident or bodily or mental infirmity on the night of the 1st January, 1928.
Average number of men returned as ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation during the undermentioned months.





April, 1928.
May, 1928.


Paddington
…
…
208
185
155


Kensington
…
…
243
8
8


Hammersmith
…
…
207
241
219


Fulham
…
…
4
100
81


Chelsea
…
…
170
17
14


City of Westminster
…
…
903
6
2


St Marylebone
…
…
262
88
82


Hampstead
…
…
29
15
27


St Pancras
…
…
568
476
433


Islington
…
…
475
459
353


Hackney
…
…
418
706
598


Holborn
…
…
363
273
255


City of London
…
…
29
2
1


Shoreditch
…
…
253
1,215
1,111


Bethnal Green
…
…
169
2,111
1,909


Stepney
…
…
758
2,081
1,833


Poplar Borough
…
…
559
3,848
3,450


Soothwark
…
…
861
1,255
1,140


Bermondsey
…
…
290
2,486
2,194


Lambeth
…
…
339
261
175


Wandsworth
…
…
192
579
458


Camberwell
…
…
267
605
494


Greenwich
…
…
272
2,000
1,755


Lewisham
…
…
48
319
298


Woolwich
…
…
59
918
831


Figures distinguishing the number of "able-bodied" persons as such are not now available.


The returns made to my Department do not distinguish the number of persons dependent on the men above-mentioned from the total number of dependent persons.

CASUALS, SHIFNAL UNION (EXERCISE).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a report regarding casual vagrants at Shifnal, Salop, having been refused exercise in the yard of the institution on
of Health how many able-bodied men were in receipt of either domiciliary or institutional relief in each of the metropolitan unions on 30th June and 7th July of this year and the number of persons dependent on such men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a Table in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the best information available for the latest dates for which Returns have been received.

Following is the Table:

Sundays, owing to the lack of effective supervision; and if he proposes to sanction the proposal of the inspector to erect barbed wire on the walls to prevent vagrants from absconding whilst wearing clothes belonging to the institution?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I am aware of the difficulties which the guardians of the Shifnal Union experience in providing exercise for the casuals on Sundays. I understand that the guardians, after discussion with the General Inspector, are considering means to deal with the difficulty, but I am not at present aware of their actual proposals in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REFORM).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 33.
asked the Minister of Health what local authorities or associations of local authorities in England and Wales, if any, have made representations to him asking for the reorganisation of local government on the lines laid down in the recently issued White Paper on proposals for the reforms of local government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The proposals outlined in the White Paper arise out of the scheme for the de-rating of certain classes of hereditaments, which was made public in the Budget statement. There has consequently been no occation for local authorities or their associations to make any special representations. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that it is intended to discuss the proposals with representatives of the appropriate associations of local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS ACT (WEST HAM).

Mr. GROVES: 35
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that the application of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, has resulted in the county borough of West Ham in an expenditure of £1,513 for 1925–26, £1,478 11s. 6d. for 1926–27, and £1,664 13s. 3d. for 1927–28; and whether he will consider making a portion of this expenditure a charge upon the Exchequer;
(2) if he is aware that the cost of the home-teaching services in connection with the application of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, has cost within the county borough of West Ham £281 4s. 7d. for 1926, £279 4s. 10d. for 1927, and estimated to cost £283 9s. 11d. for 1928; and whether he will consider making a portion of this
expenditure a charge upon the Exchequer and a proportion borne by the local authority?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures quoted agree substantially though not exactly, with those furnished to me by the town council. The expenditure of the council represents payments to voluntary agencies in respect of services rendered by them under agreement with the council, and my Department are paying direct grants to these agencies in respect of these services amounting to about £750 for the year 1927–28. In addition, the annual cost to the Exchequer of old age pensions paid to blind persons in West Ham under 70 years of age is estimated to be about £3,000. The arrangements in West Ham do not differ from those elsewhere prevailing under the scheme for assisting blind persons, and I see no ground for a special concession to this particular local authority.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts of the country the local authorities do not apply this Act, if I may say so respectfully, with the same vigour as West Ham does, and does it not appear that the more energetically local authorities apply the Statute the more they have to pay? Will the Minister of Health consider that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All that will be changed under the new proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STATISTICS.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 34.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of houses completed, and the number authorised but not completed, by local authorities and by private enterprise under the 1923 and 1924 Housing Acts, respectively, in each of the 12 months prior to the reduction of the subsidy and in each month since; and the average price of parlour and non-parlour houses, together with the average superficial area, for each of these months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


STATEMENT showing particulars of progress, etc., made under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, for the period October, 1926 to May, 1928, inclusive.


Month.
Housing, etc., Act, 1923.
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
Average prices and areas of houses included in contracts let by or in direct labour schemes of, Local Authorities during each month.


Local Authorities Schemes.
Private Enterprise Schemes.
Local Authorities Schemes.
Private Enterprise Schemes.


Completed during the month.
Under construction at end of month.
Authorised but not started at end of month.
Completed during the month.
Under construction at end of month.
Authorised but not started at end of month.
Completed during the month.
Under construction at end of month.
Authorised but not started at end of month.
Completed during the month.
Under construction at end of month.
Authorised but not started at end of month.
Average Prices.
Average areas in square feet.*


Non-Parlour houses.
Parlour houses.
Non-Parlour houses.
Parlour houses.


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.




Before reduction of Subsidy.


1926.












£
£




October
…
1,078
10,514
9,745
7,003
43,143
67,782
4,707
49,279
44,834
119
799
2,474
453
522
789
926


November
…
615
9,931
10,395
7,049
40,809
68,791
4,969
49,442
42,346
150
860
2,303
422
502
766
923


December
…
1,225
9,759
9,789
8,031
41,463
62,905
5,367
49,587
39,939
129
834
2,206
461
498
813
923


1927.


















January
…
1,074
9,636
9,088
5,910
41,662
67,753
4,831
50,435
45,401
73
832
2,285
427
492
773
922


February
…
899
9,364
9,180
5,583
40,469
69,396
4,742
52,052
46,053
108
979
1,982
422
489
794
907


March
…
1,593
9,450
8,536
6,824
41,907
66,077
5,910
55,425
41,365
76
950
2,044
425
494
788
917


April
…
1,271
3,542
8,053
5,998
45,093
61,348
6,258
61,775
35,179
101
1,081
2,000
421
479
783
925


May
…
1,234
9,267
8,476
6,325
44,465
60,490
6,750
64,243
30,333
49
1,030
2,112
397
474
742
911


June
…
1,608
8,665
7,736
7,784
42,511
57,651
6,954
63,526
29,218
68
1,063
2,069
425
481
785
923


July
…
1,567
7,870
7,326
8,213
39,166
55,439
8,922
60,279
26,234
108
133
2,014
418
483
783
914


August
…
1,310
7,107
6,806
7,204
35,815
55,124
10,190
53,752
30,264
169
908
1,932
420
497
786
932


September
…
3,609
3,760
6,669
22,066
16,716
56,072
26,084
31,893
28,835
502
530
1,809
370
458
741
903




After reduction of Subsidy


October
…
926
3,041
6,786
4,985
14,012
59,468
5,067
30,714
27,608
106
445
2,126
395
438
764
906


November
…
778
2,748
6,200
1,772
15,165
59,675
4,312
30,643
30,780
78
403
2,051
434
450
779
924


December
…
472
2,407
6,059
1,954
16,576
61,078
3,803
30,022
30,350
47
364
2,025
401
468
786
904


1928.


















January
…
305
2,557
6,115
1,951
17,703
58,578
3,615
29,970
28,525
88
326
1,987
389
437
785
903


February
…
480
2,516
5,988
2,204
18,767
57,997
3,858
29,747
27,163
81
246
2,038
356
430
751
898


March
…
225
2,972
5,885
2,626
22,302
54,394
4,260
29,773
26,473
69
211
2,050
365
445
766
914


April
…
354
3,365
5,129
3,550
22,902
34,630
3,564
31,505
25,198
1
220
2,028
378
431
767
878


May
…
295
3,619
5,101
3,364
23,740
53,439
4,854
32,244
21,964
21
827
1,927
372
445
764
904


* Excluding Flats.

TORQUAY.

Mr. HAYES: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will make inquiries of the local authority as to the prices received by private builders for houses built under the scheme of the local authority in Torquay, and as to whether the builders received the subsidy granted both by the Exchequer and the local authority in addition to the agreed prices?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in Torquay contracts were entered into between builders and house purchasers, in accordance with a scheme of the local authority, for the building of houses at a price of £550 each, and that the subsidy under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, and the subsidy paid by the local authority, amounting in all to £120, was retained by the builders who thereby received £670 per house; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that the assistance given from public funds is reflected in the price of houses to the purchasers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the exact selling price in individual cases, but I understand that the scheme adopted by the local authority in December, 1923, prescribed a maximum figure of £600 inclusive of land but on the basis that the builder would, in addition, be entitled to receive the subsidy of £120. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay in reply to a question in December last, I communicated with the local authority in regard to the operation of their scheme for assisting private enterprise; steps were taken to improve the administration and the scheme was brought to an end more than two years ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

DISTRESSED AREAS.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a public meeting held at Abersychan by citizens of the district on 4th July to discuss the position of the men and women who are in distressed circumstances as a result of the closing down of the Varteg, Llanerch, and other collieries; whether he is aware
that the representatives of the mine-owners and men had given an intimation to the conveners of the meeting that unless immediate relief was given to these areas more of the collieries would close down; and whether he will consider the reply to a deputation representative of the collieries of this district which recently waited on him?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am not yet in a position to give any further information; but I hope to do so before the end of the Session.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that since he kindly consented to receive a deputation nearly 6,000 men employed in those collieries have been thrown out of employment; and is he also aware that those collieries used to export all their production to Spain, and that, as a result of the Spanish Government giving a subvention to the mine-owners and railways, all this production of coal previously exported to Spain has been cut out of the market? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could expedite his Budget proposals by giving relief on coal, and especially the coal consumed in the iron and steel trade, it would enable those collieries to be started.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am well aware that the situation is distressing and has got worse since we last discussed the question with the deputation. The question is entirely whether the remedy that it is in our power to use would be effective.

Commander WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the extraordinary desire in certain quarters of the House that the Budget proposals should be expedited, while in other quarters those proposals are opposed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much concerned with this particular problem affecting South Wales and the North-East Coast.

POOLING ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. SHINWELL: 58.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the coalowners' intention to apply on a national scale the pooling arrangements at present operating in certain districts, and that the closing of many alleged unprofitable pits is in contemplation; and
whether, in view of the consequences to the mining community, he proposes to take steps to deal with the matter?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. and gallant Friend understands that the coalowners are discussing the possibility of applying voluntarily, on a national scale, one or other of the district schemes now in operation. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that the intention of the Government is to take no cognisance whatever of this new pooling arrangement, despite the fact that many thousands of miners will be thrown out of work and many pits closed down, which will cause irreparable disaster to the mining industry and to the prospects of the workers in this country? Is that the hon. Gentleman's reply?

Captain MARGESSON: The hon. Member is to understand exactly what I have read out.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be a little more informative and a little less arrogant?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to use expressions of that kind.

Mr. SHINWELL: I have put a question to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I have asked for an answer. When he tells me I am misinformed myself about the reply, I am entitled to say to him what I think, and I shall say it in spite of anyone in this House, including yourself.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Mr. SHINWELL: I will withdraw nothing.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am bound to take notice of that kind of remark. I will not have them made in the House of Commons.

Mr. SHINWELL: Tell the Front Bench to do that sort of thing before you address remarks to me.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said before that hon. Members cannot expect always to get an answer that satisfies them.

SUBSIDENCE, ABERTILLERY.

Mr. BARKER: 59.
asked the Secretary for Minus if he is aware that the gas holder an Abertillery Gas Works has been seriously damaged by mining subsidence and has to be reconstructed before it can be used; that this damage is due to subsidence caused by mining; and will he expedite the Report of the Commission dealing with this question, in view of the damage done to public and private property by unscientific mining operations?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. The Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence was presented to Parliament last year, and specifically stated that no case had been made out for the grant of a special right to compensation for damage caused by mining subsidence in the case of property owned by local authorities or by statutory gas companies.

Mr. BARKER: The answer does not deal with the damage to the gas holder at Abertillery.

Captain MARGESSON: The question put down has been answered.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The question on the Paper is with regard to a specific case where damage has been clone by subsidence, and what action is the Government going to take with a view to compensating local authorities? What is the answer?

Captain MARGESSON: The Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence specifically stated that no case has been made out for a special right to compensation for damage caused by mining subsidence in the case of property owned by local authorities or by statutory gas companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. MACLEAN: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the new revenue law passed at the Congress sessions in the United States by which the entertainment tax has been abolished on all admission charges up to and including three dollars; whether he is aware that the effect is to abolish the entertainment tax in all cinemas and
picture houses in America; and whether, in view of the fact that British exhibitors have to take a quota of British films, he will now place the British film industry on an equal footing with the American by abolishing the Entertainments Duty, at least on similar admission charges?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second and third parts in the negative.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that this country is paying off a War debt to America and that the War debt that we are paying off is being used by the Americans to meet this tax and that they are sending films over to this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is much too hot to answer questions like that without notice.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not the case that the United States is a country which does not believe in Socialism and is not that the reason why that country is richer than this country?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not because they believe in repudiating their debts that they are so prosperous?

Oral Answers to Questions — ELSIE MACKAY FUND.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Parliament will be given an opportunity for discussing the gift to the nation of the estate of the Honourable Elsie Mackay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Without wishing to impugn in any way the generosity of Lord Inchcape, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mrs. Hinchliffe, who was left a widow as a result of this accident from which the State will benefit, says that she has certain moral claims against this estate?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is really not a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I submit that the State has benefited by this accident which occurred, and surely it is
within the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make provision ex gratia for the widow in these circumstances?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not control the business of the House.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not suggesting that, but may I submit that it is within the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an ex gratia payment, or permit the House to discuss the advisability of making such a payment.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point the opportunities for discussing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have already said, does not control.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Is not this gift given free of all conditions of this kind, and would it not be wrong to change it?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC FILMS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the difficulties experienced by a distinguished American astronomer who desired to bring into this country two copies of a cinematograph film showing the successive phases of the planet Jupiter during its rotation, one for the purpose of a lecture and the other for presentation to the Royal Astronomical Society; whether he is aware that the films upon his arrival at Victoria Station, notwithstanding his explanations, were impounded by the customs authorities: that the films were on the following day removed to the Bonded Films stores in Endell Street when a charge of 10s. was made: that the astronomer was fined 2s. 6d. for the offence of carrying merchandise in a trunk; and that on the third morning he was required to return one film to America at a charge of 10s. for attention and 3s. 9d. for postage, and to pay 29s. for duty on the other film, involving a visit for payment to Camden Town and a return to Endell Street for the release of the film; and whether, having regard to the trouble and expense to which the astronomer was put in this ease, he will consider making concessions in respect of the admission of films into this country which are to be used only for scientific purposes?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to this case. The importation of standard cinematograph films in passengers' baggage is quite exceptional. No occasion has hitherto arisen for the provision of the special facilities which would be necessary for the Customs examination of such films at Victoria Station. The films in question had, therefore, to be removed elsewhere for examination. The subsequent proceedings to which my hon. Friend refers were due to this necessity. In view of the present case, however, the possibility of shortening the procedure, as regards films of a non-commercial character, is being examined. As to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the discussion on the Amendment to the Finance Bill moved by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras, North (Captain Fraser) on the 3rd July, that the practicability of an exemption for scientific films would be further considered.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what it costs to answer a question of this length?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think it was very expensive. It so happened that we were able to draft the answer fairly easily.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL SALARIES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the salaries attached to Ministerial posts in 1880 and the salaries attached to those posts at the present time, giving in the case of increases or decreases the date of the change?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am having a statement prepared and, with my hon. Friend's permission, will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it is ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAMES FLOODS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in regard to the flooding of certain Metro-
politan areas by the Thames, the General Purposes Committee of the London County Council, having devoted consideration to the position of the Administrative County of London in any probable scheme, the conflict of jurisdiction of the various riparian authorities, and various technical aspects of the question, declare that they find the problem one of considerable perplexity, and that they are not in a position to report; and whether he is prepared to pronounce the question a national one, and to consider initiating a Thames valley-drainage scheme a national undertaking for the relief of unemployment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware of the report. What the committee stated was that they were not yet in a position to report, but would do so as soon as possible. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee really did state that they felt difficulty in reporting?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Their answer was, as I understand, that they found difficulty in reporting at once, but they did not say that they would find any difficulty ultimately in making a Report. On the contrary, they stated that they would report as soon as possible.

Commander WILLIAMS: May we expect the Report before the autumn, or will it take longer than that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that I am in a position to give an answer on that point. The Report is not to be made by me or by anyone over whom I have any control; it will be a Report by the General Purposes Committee of the London County Council, and anything that they do is entirely outside my purview.

Mr. SCURR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several other Committees of the London County Council are still investigating this question, and that it will be some time before any Report can be presented?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. I am not sure that there is not a little confusion on this matter, because, as I understand, the Committee to whose Report the hon. Member makes reference is investigating, not so much the question of floods in the Metropolitan area as the whole question of drainage and flooding in the Thames Valley, and I should imagine that that is a matter which it would take some time thoroughly to consider.

Sir R. THOMAS: Having regard to the great importance of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Committee to report as soon as possible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am always a little chary of interfering more than is necessary with the functions of local authorities—[Interruption]—and I never do so except in the last resort, especially in a case of such importance as this.

Brigadier-General Sir GEORGE COCKERILL: Does my right hon. Friend propose that a Committee of this House should be set up to consider this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I do not think there is any necessity to set up a Committee of this House. Whether anything further will require to be done when the Report of this particular Committee is received, is a matter to be considered later.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL TRANSFERENCE BOARD (REPORT).

Mr. BATEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Industrial Transference Board will be ready for Members of this House; and whether it will be accompanied by any Government proposals or recommendations?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Mr. BATEY: Is not the statement correct, which appears in the North-country Press this morning, that the Government have received this report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the statement.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it the intention of the Government to hold up this report until the end of the Session, so that we shall not have an opportunity of discussing it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot hold out any such hope.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask to what hope the right hon. Gentleman refers? I asked whether it is the intention of the Government to hold up the report of this important Board until the end of the Session, and preclude the opportunity of discussing it in this House?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Very unfair!

Mr. PALING: Is it the fact that the Ministry of Labour is already acting on recommendations made in this report?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Prime Minister give us any idea as to when he expects this report of the Industrial Transference Board, since the majority of Members believe that the recommendations of the Board are being acted upon?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I can say no more than that I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Mr BATEY: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has already said that he is not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I was not clear as to the Prime Minister's answer. In my supplementary question I asked whether it was correct, as stated in the North-country papers this morning, that the Government had received this report, and I was not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman said that he had not seen the statement or that he had not seen the report. I want to ask the Prime Minister: Has he got this report, and when can we expect to have it before us?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has already answered that question.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. BATEY: I was not clear whether the Prime Minister meant that he had not seen the Press report, or that he had not seen this report, and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask him whether he has received this report, and when we may expect to have it?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member misunderstood what the Prime Minister said, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will repeat it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I can answer both the hon. Member's questions. I have the report, and am studying it at present. I have not seen the Press report to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. BATEY: That is too slim.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEAT PRICES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 48.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that meat trusts have entered into an agreement to curtail the shipments of meat to this country and thereby raise the price to the consumer; whether he is aware that the agreement is already in operation, with the result that the average price of chilled meat on Smithfield Market for the week ending 15th June, 1928 was £10 per ton higher than for the corresponding week of last year; and whether, seeing that the artificial regulation of meat prices is only made possible by the action of his department in preventing the importation of sound continental meat, which source of supply is not controlled by the meat trusts, he will take steps to modify the embargo and allow the importation of sound continental meat.

Captain BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The information at the Ministry's disposal is to the effect that any agreement entered into by the large meat importing firms is aimed at preventing violent fluctuations in the supplies of meat to this country rather than at curtailing supplies generally. Mr. right hon. Friend is aware of the increase in the price of chilled meat at Smithfield at the present time as compared with a year ago, but he is not prepared to ascribe this increase to any agreement entered into by the meat importing firms. As regards the last part of the question, the imports of meat other than pork or veal from the continent prior to the placing of the embargo on the importation of meat from the continent were negligible. My right hon. Friend can see no reason for any modification of his attitude with regard to
the embargo which was imposed solely for the protection of the livestock of this country against a known source of infection by foot-and-mouth disease.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reply to two questions? In the first place, if the Minister does not attribute this increase in the price of chilled meat to the agreement existing in the Trust, to what does he attribute it; and in the second place, what objection can the right hon. Gentleman have to importing sound meat from the continent?

Captain BOWYER: I will convey those questions to my right hon. Friend, but I think they would take too long to answer at Question Time.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If people would eat less chilled meat and more good British meat, would it not be better for them?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how long the country has been free from foot-and-mouth disease.

Captain BOWYER: An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed yesterday at Stockton-in-the-Forest, near York. The last previous outbreak occurred on the 20th May, and the country was entirely free from restrictions on account of foot-and-mouth disease from the 18th June to the 11th July.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when the country was free from foot-and-mouth disease before this period?

Captain BOWYER: I will make inquiries.

Major McLEAN: Is my hon. and gallant Friend able to give the House any information as to the source from which the infection came?

Captain BOWYER: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Yorkshire Show at Halifax will be affected?

Captain BOWYER: No, Sir, but I will have inquiries made and let my hon. and learned Friend know.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has this affected the Royal Show in any way?

Captain BOWYER: No, I believe not.

RELIEF (DEVONSHIRE).

Commander WILLIAMS (for Sir C. MORRISON-BELL): 31.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount contributed by the Treasury in relief of agricultural rates in Devonshire for the year 1927–28 and the estimated amount which the Treasury will contribute when the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill becomes operative for the year 1929–30?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount of the Exchequer Grants paid under the Agricultural Rates Acts, 1896 and 1923, in relief of rates in the Administrative County of Devon for the year 1927–28 was, approximately, £221,600. Under the Government proposals these grants together with other grants will be discontinued as from 1st April, 1930. In the distribution of the new Exchequer grant which will be given after that date, the sum payable in respect of every county will be more than the discontinued grants in the standard year 1928–29 and the estimated loss of rates due to de-rating, by at least 1s. per head of the population.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALL HOLDINGS, SCARRISTAVEG.

Mr. MACLEAN: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the respective dates when the three individuals who have been allocated the three new holdings on the farm of Scarristaveg lodged their applications for small holdings?

Captain BOWYER: The applications of John McCuish and John McLeod for small holdings were made on 29th November, 1918, and 5th October, 1925, respectively. Miss Hannah Macleay has not lodged any formal application with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland but the proprietor, when agreeing to subdivide the farm, made it a condition that Miss Macleay should be given one of the holdings to be formed.

Mr. MACLEAN: Why is it that a person who made applications in 1925 gets a holding, and two men, who have had their applications standing from 1912, are refused?

Captain BOWYER: I cannot say. I have answered all the questions asked in the original question.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is the custom for the Minister to be able to reply to a supplementary question, and, while the hon. and gallant Gentleman may not know very much about Scottish affairs, I hope he will take that question back to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

LAND SEIZURE (PROSECUTION, LOCHMADDY).

Mr. MACLEAN: 57.
asked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the decision of the Lord Justice Clerk that the marking of the appeal of Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan ought to have been regarded as suspending the procedure, and that the only warrant for their imprisonment was held up by the appeal, he will issue instructions to authorities responsible for the issue of warrants for imprisonment and direct their attention to this decision?

Captain BOWYER: My right hon. Friend is unable to accept the assumption on which the question is based, but if, when the appeal referred to is decided, it appears that any instructions by him are necessary, the matter will, of course, have his attention.

Mr. MACLEAN: The assumption on the part of the Minister for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman is replying is entirely erroneous. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the Lord Advocate himself, in reply to a question this week, stated that the Lord Justice Clerk had sustained the appeal of these two men? Is he not confounding two appeals?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now giving information and not asking for it.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not giving information. I am drawing attention to the fact that the Lord Advocate is either giving wrong information to the House or is under an erroneous impression with regard to the question put down. There are two appeals.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has answered that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I am speaking now as a Member of this House who is entitled to ask a question and whose right to ask questions is safeguarded and protected by Mr. Speaker. The Lord Advocate himself replied to a question of mine dealing with the appeal I am mentioning. The appeal which is still to be heard is a different appeal altogether. The Lord Advocate either knows it or ought to know it as the Chief Law Officer of the Crown in Scotland. It is because of that that I am asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take back to the Lord Advocate a request to answer the question that is down here on the Paper.

Captain BOWYER: I think there is a mistake, because my right hon. Friend assures me there has been no decision by the Lord Justice Clerk, and, further, that he has nothing to add to the answer he gave on 10th July.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA (IMMIGRATION).

Mr. HURD: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how the proportion of British to non-British immigration into Canada has varied in the past five years; and whether he is proposing methods of co-operation with the

Immigration to Canada—Calendar Years.


——
British.
From U.S.A.
Other Countries.
Totals.


1923
…
…
…
70,110
20,307
46,903
137,320


1924
…
…
…
57,612
16,328
50,510
124,450


1925
…
…
…
35,362
17,717
31,828
84,907


1926
…
…
…
48,819
20,944
66,221
135,984


1927
…
…
…
52,940
23,818
82,126
158,884






264,843
99,114
277,588
641,545

With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I invite his attention to the recommendations of the Canadian Parliamentary Immigration Committee, now under the consideration of the Dominion Government, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROSECUTIONS FOR MURDER.

Mr. PURCELL: 61.
asked the Attorney-General whether any instructions are drafted for the guidance of the Public Prosecutor or other authorities respon-

Canadian authorities which will increase the British percentage of such immigration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): As the answer to my hon. Friend's question is somewhat long and includes tabular statistics, I propose, with his permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?

Mr. AMERY: We are all endeavouring to co-operate with the Dominion Government to increase the number of British migrants to Canada.

Mr. HURD: With what prospect of success?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In what regard is the National Railway of Canada helping in this direction?

Mr. AMERY: I could not say offhand.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows the total immigration into Canada from Great Britain and from other European countries during the past five years:

sible for initiating a prosecution on a murder charge; and whether he will communicate them to the House?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): So far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned, it is his duty under the Prosecution of Offences Act to institute, undertake and carry on such criminal proceedings as may from time to time be prescribed by Regulations. There are no Regulations which relate specially to murder trials, but the Regulations made pur-
suant to Section 8 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, were settled in the year 1886, and were laid on the Table of this House for 40 days before they became operative. These Regulations are printed in Volume II of Statutory Rules and Orders Revised, at page 600. I am not in a position to answer for other authorities.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Are we correct in assuming that if a coroner's jury brings in a verdict of murder against persons named or unnamed the Public Prosecutor has no option in the matter?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One of the Regulations lays down that the cases in which it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute, undertake and carry on criminal proceedings in respect of an offence are, among others, where the offence is punishable by death.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

LEADING RATINGS (PRIVILEGES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 65.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what decision has been reached in respect of Request No. 10 of the 1926 Welfare Conference?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): It has not been found possible to increase the privileges of leading ratings except as stated in Article 514a, Clause 2, of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, as amended in July, 1927. It is difficult to extend further privileges to leading ratings without unduly lessening the distinction between them and petty officers.

INVALIDED RATINGS (ATTRIBUTABILITY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 66.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that out of 1,359 naval ratings invalided from the service in 1927 only in 180 cases was the invaliding disability attributable to service, and as this is a cause of disquietude among the petty officers and men of the Royal Navy and non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Marines, who have to pass a high physical standard before entry in the Navy, he will give further consideration
to the establishment of an independent appeal tribunal?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: This matter has quite recently been very fully and carefully considered in all its aspects, and I regret that I am unable to recommend any alteration of the present system.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that in the Debate in this House the unanimous view was expressed that this appeal tribunal should be established, and has the hon. and gallant Gentleman considered this matter since that Debate?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should dispute the fact that the opinion of the House was unanimous on that subject, and it is since that date that the decision has been arrived at.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman recall the name of any single Member of this House who spoke against it? Is he aware that everyone spoke in favour of it?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should not accept that myself.

Commander WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell the House what was the sickness in respect of which most of these people were invalided out?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot say off-hand, but I should say that it was tuberculosis. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me further notice, I will give him an answer.

Mr. HAYES: Was this matter considered by the Board of Admiralty or by an independent medical board?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Board of Admiralty considered the subject and consulted an independent medical board on the whole subject—not as to the tribunal of course.

Sir B. FALLE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether this is the decision of the Admiralty alone relating to the three services?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The decision of the Admiralty refers to the Navy.

Sir B. FALLE: And this is the sole decision of the Admiralty?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (R. A. WILD).

Miss LAWRENCE: 14.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the case of Reginald Aubrey Wild, who contracted lead poisoning while working for Messrs. Locke, Lancaster, and W. W. and R. Johnson and Sons, Limited, of Millwall; whether he is aware that on application to the certifying surgeon for a certificate the same was refused, the certifying surgeon being the same doctor that was in the service of the employers; that the medical referee for the district, who formerly was the employer's doctor, has given a decision that the man is suffering from lead poisoning, but that he is not disabled; and whether, seeing that Mr. Wild was an in-patient in the London Hospital, suffering from lead poisoning, from 20th April until 14th May, after receiving a week's notice on 15th April, he will arrange for the man to be examined by a medical referee attached to another district as, until he is certified, no claim can be made for compensation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The decision of the medical referee under the Act is final and I have no power to intervene in the manner suggested. I am, moreover, satisfied on inquiry that this case has been most carefully and conscientiously dealt with both by the certifying surgeon and by the medical referee, and I strongly deprecate the implication that these gentlemen, both of whom are medical practitioners of high standing, may have been influenced in carrying out their statutory duties by their connection with these works. The certifying surgeon is responsible in his official capacity for the periodic examination of workers employed in lead processes under the Lead Compounds Regulations; he also, I understand, periodically examines the other workers and examines workmen newly employed, but has no other interest in the firm. The medical referee used to carry out some three years ago the periodic examinations required by the Regulations, but he did this under special appointment from the Chief Inspector or Factories, and he was not, I am informed, otherwise engaged by the firm.

Miss LAWRENCE: In view of the fact that the medical referee for the district
did not confirm the decision of the certifying surgeon and that the certifying surgeon is employed in the manner detailed in the question, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some further inquiries should be made?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was afraid that the House would think the answer rather too long. I have made a very careful inquiry into the position of both these medical gentlemen, and their connection with the firm is very slight, as I explained to the hon. Member, and really, so far as the actual certificate of the medical referee is concerned, under the Act, that is final, and I have no power to intervene.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that injured workmen practically all over the country have little or no confidence in certifying surgeons who are receiving large fees from employers and then acting for those same employers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In this case, the suggestion cannot possibly be made. There is no question of a large fee being received from employers. As far as the general statement made by the hon. Member is concerned, I really think that I must ask him to let me have at least a few of the details of these cases, and then I will go into the matter at once, as he has made a very serious charge.

Miss LAWRENCE: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the conflicting medical opinions in this case, and whether, in view of the conflict of medical evidence, it is not possible to arrange for another examination. The first doctor said that the man had lead poisoning, the second doctor said that he had lead poisoning but was not disabled, and the third doctor, an independent doctor at the hospital, certified him as actually sound. In view of that conflict of medical opinion, cannot the right hon. Gentleman have another examination?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will tell the hon. Member what I will do. I will get into communication with the third doctor, who, she says, is independent, and ask him to let me have a report on the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON JURIES.

Mr. CHARLETON: 15.
asked the Home Secretary the number of persons serving on common juries during the year 1927 at the Assizes in England and Wales in criminal and civil cases, respectively; at the High Court of Justice, London, in cases other than Assize cases; and in County Courts and Coroners' Courts, respectively, in England and Wales?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that figures in the form desired are not available. I can only say that in 1926, 31,631 jurors were summoned in Assize Courts, 6,546 common jurors in the High Court and round about 12,000 jurors in County Courts. As regards Coroners' Courts, the law was altered during 1927, and figures for that year are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS.

Mr. FENBY: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the last complete year for which the Local Taxation Returns (England and Wales) have been published is 1924–25; and whether he will state when the Returns for 1926–27 will be made available?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Part I of the Local Taxation Returns for 1925–26 has been published and the remaining Parts are now passing through the Press. The date when publication of the Local Taxation Returns for 1926–27 will be complete depends to a large extent on the date when the local authorities furnish my Department with the information to be included in the Returns. More than 100 of them have not yet sent me the required particulars. Information as to the poundage of the rates levied in 1926–27 in teach urban area and as to the amount and poundage of the rates levied in 1927–28 in each rating area in England and Wales has already been published.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPULATION, 1926.

Mr. FENBY: 25.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated population in 1926 of each administrative county in England and Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figures asked for have already been published in the Registrar-General's Statistical Review for the year in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDENSED MACHINE-SKIMMED MILK.

Commander WILLIAMS (for Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL): 30.
asked the Minister of Health the amount of condensed machine-skimmed milk imported into this country during each of the months of the present year; and whether there have been any cases where such importations have not been properly labelled unfit for babies?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the amounts of condensed machine-skimmed milk imported into this country during each of the first six months of the present year were as follow:






Cwts.


January
…
…
…
152,040


February

…
…
123,449


March
…
…
…
155,457


April
…
…
…
181,608


May
…
…
…
181,416


June
…
…
…
170,173


I am informed that there were no cases in which the importations were not labelled Unfit for Babies.

Commander WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what reason he has to think that this milk is really as good milk for ordinary human beings as British milk?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIP "ITALIA" AND CAPTAIN AMUNDSEN (ASSISTANCE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD (for Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY): 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state what progress has been made or action taken in the sending of British assistance for the rescue of Captain Amundsen and the remaining members of the crew of the wrecked airship "Italia"?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): There have been no further developments since the reply
which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) on 5th July.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to offer assistance on behalf of Great Britain? Is it not rather a reflection upon Great Britain that while other countries have been assisting we have taken no action?

Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. I made an offer both to the Italian and Norwegian Governments. In the latter case, I offered to send four machines, but for various reasons, into which I need not go now, the offer was refused. I would remind the right hon. Member that the difficulty is not the difficulty of machines, but of landing on the ice and in the fog. I understand that there are quite a number of machines that could carry out the rescue, within reach of the marooned crew, but the difficulties are difficulties of fog and ice.

Mr. COMPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary gave a reply stating that no effort was made by the Air Force of this country?

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Sir S. HOARE: I have here the answer given by the Under-Secretary. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. If he will read that answer, he will see—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I will read it if the House wishes it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] The answer given by the Under-Secretary was as follows:
The first request from Norway, which was for the loan of two float seaplanes, was received in the Air Ministry on Saturday evening, and an immediate reply was despatched the same night intimating the readiness of the Royal Air Force to make these aircraft available and asking urgently for further particulars as to the type required. On Monday afternoon an answer was received to the effect that the machines required were not float seaplanes of service type but Moth light aeroplanes. An offer was at once made that the Royal Air Force should fly up to four machines of this type to Norway and there hand them over to the Norwegian authorities for use in such manner as they thought fit, since delivery by air appeared to be the quickest method available. The Norwegian Government, however, replied on Tuesday that they feared that under the latest arrangements made for the sailing of the relief vessel from Tromso the machines could not arrive in
time, even if flown direct to Norway, and that, in these circumstances, whilst they warmly appreciated this ready offer of assistance, they regretted that they could not avail themselves of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1928; cols. 1573–4, Vol. 219.]

Mr. COMPTON: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman with respect to that particular question, but I would remind him that three weeks ago, in answer to my late colleague, the late Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose), the Under-Secretary made a statement that no efforts had been made—six weeks after the loss of the "Italia."

Sir S. HOARE: I have not the other answers available, but I feel sure that if the hon. Member will look at them he will find that what I have stated is literally correct, namely, that I made an offer both to the Italian and the Norwegian Governments, but for one reason or another those offers were refused.

Mr. COMPTON: I will look them up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can state the business for next week, and whether he is able to give any indication of the remainder of the business for the later part of the Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday: Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, Report and Third Reading.

Wednesday and Thursday: Racecourse Betting Bill, Report and Third Reading.

Friday: Supply, Committee.

On any day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken.

As to the date of the rising of the House, it is not easy to forecast at the moment. It must depend necessarily on the progress of business. In the speech that I made in connection with the allocation of time, I gave details of the business which we hoped to get. I did not mention in that list the Racecourse Betting Bill, because that Bill, being a private Bill, I had every expectation that it would be passed in Private Members' Time, which was completed last Friday. That expectation was not realised. Apart from that, I do not think there is any change in the list of business to be taken which I gave to the House on the 28th
June. I think there is a possibility that we may get up before the Bank Holiday, in normal circumstances.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask whether the place given in that statement to the Race-course Betting Bill indicates that the Government have accepted responsibility for its future progress; and in that case can the House be enlightened as to the reason?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. The Government are prepared to take over the Racecourse Betting Bill, and the reasons I think might well be given in the course of the Debate. They have, however, been stated in the discussions on the Bill, and one is that the revenue to be derived will be of very considerable assistance to the Exchequer and might possibly lead to a remodelling of the Betting Duty. In the second place, many on this side of the House, and indeed hon. Members in all parts of the House, consider that it will have a very appreciable effect in helping to cleanse our racecourses.

Mr. STEPHEN: May I ask the Prime Minister if it means that the Government Whips will be put on hereafter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot imagine that that would be of any interest to the hon. Member; but they will.

Mr. SHINWELL: With regard to the business for the latter part of the Session, may I ask whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to allow an opportunity for a discussion of the Report of the Industrial Transference Board?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is a little difficult to deal with individual members of a party, but, without being in any way discourteous to the leaders of the party, I will answer the question. My intention certainly is to have such a discussion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may be taken after half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 96.

Division No. 280.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jephcott, A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Drewe, C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Edge, Sir William
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunlifie-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ellis, R. G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston S. M.)
Long, Major Eric


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacIntyre, Ian


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.


Bennett, A. J.
Fielden, E. B.
Macmillan Captain H.


Bethel, A.
Finburgh, S.
Macquisten, F. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fraser, Captain Ian
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Blundell, F. N.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Grace, John
Meyer, Sir Frank


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grant, Sir J. A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)


Buchan, John
Hacking, Douglas H.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Burman, J. B.
Hanbury, C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Harland, A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Penny, Frederick George


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Charleton, H. C.
Hills, Major John Waller
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hilton, Cecil
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hutchison, Sir G. A. Clark
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Skelton, A. N.


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Townend, A. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smithers, Waldron
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wolmer, Viscount


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Warrender, Sir victor
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wells, S. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)



Titchfield, Major the Marquees of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Ammon, Charles George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Keily, W. T.
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Mackinder, W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cove, W. G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamoton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Chesterfield Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Cleethorpes Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILLS REPORTED.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments: Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

Copyright Order Confirmation (Mechanical Instruments: Royalties) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Swindon Extension) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health (Halifax and West Riding Provisional Orders) Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Gillingham Extension) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Stretford and District Electricity Board Bill [Lords],

Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords],

Dover Gas Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Maidenhead Water Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1928.

POST OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,314,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."—[Note.—£22,000,000 has been voted on account.]

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I think it would probably be convenient to the Committee that I should follow the course that has normally been followed during the years in which I have presented the Estimates, and I will attempt to give as shortly as I can, although I am afraid it must be at some length, a general survey of the work of the Post Office during the past year, with particular reference to one or two points. There is one thing I should like to say at once, and that is that I wish to make reference to the position of the staff, because I have noticed a tendency during recent months for increasing attacks to be levied in the Press, sometimes anonymously, against members of the Post Office staff. They get all the abuse possible for failures in the service, but they get little credit for successes. That is both unjust and improper. I am the person who must take the responsibility, and the proper channel through which any complaint should be made is through me, and it is my duty to attend to those complaints, to consider them and to answer them carefully. That I am prepared to do.
I have my own domestic difficulties with the staff. It is impossible, in controlling a staff of nearly a quarter of a million people, not to have difficulties from time to time. We have some at the
moment, and I think, probably, it would not conduce to the amelioration of those difficulties at the present moment to discuss them in public. But, speaking generally, I am convinced that the Post Office staff as a whole is conscious of its responsibility towards the public, and is proud of the great service which it helps to administer. So long as I feel that, so long am I prepared in this House, while I hold my office, to attend to complaints which are made, and to benefit by criticisms, without resenting criticisms in any way. I will only add this, that without the loyalty and the loyal cooperation of members of the Post Office staff there cannot be found the means of securing efficiency and economy. I am sure they all desire to give that cooperation, but the sort of attacks to which I have alluded, made in a form in which they cannot be answered, makes all the more difficult my task of carrying out efficiency and economy in this branch of the public service. I thought I ought to say that at the outset, and it is in that spirit that I ask the House to approach the consideration of these Estimates.
Let me take, first of all, the financial side, and I will deal first with the Vote itself, although, as I have frequently explained, it gives a most misleading picture of the financial activities of the Service; but, taking it as it stands, the Estimate, as the Committee will see, for the current financial year is £59,743,191 gross and £57,314,000 net, being a decrease of £334,136 gross and £329,000 net, as compared with the Estimate for the previous year. Lest the Committee may be led into giving me credit for the decrease, I hasten to explain that the decrease is owing to perfectly natural causes. The first cause is that it so happened last year that there were 53 weekly pay days instead of 52, and there has been a fall in the cost of living bonus. Apart from any further fall in the cost-of-living bonus, the Post Office Vote is bound to slow, year by year, an annual increase corresponding to, although not necessarily commensurate with, the growth of the business and of the revenue.
Taking the various Sub-heads of the Vote, there are one or two increases
and decreases to which I might draw attention. Under Sub-head N there is an increase of £119,400 in the provision for pensions and other non-effective charges. There are two causes operating to produce this increase, which will continue to operate for some years to produce a somewhat high rate, and those are, first, an increase in the average rate of pension, which takes place as the older pensioners whose pensions were based on pre-War wages die out, and people begin to come on whose pension standard is based on post-War service. Secondly, as I have explained on previous occasions, we are just now beginning to reach the result as regards pension charges of the large increase which took place 30 or 40 years ago in the number of staff of the Post Office.
An increase in the number of broadcasting receiving licences accounts for an increase of £75,000 under Subhead P, and of those Sub-heads which show a decrease on the previous year's Vote, the largest reduction is £579,050 in the provision for salaries and wages under Sub-head A. This figure is the net result of the two large modifications of which I have already spoken—the fact that there was an extra weekly pay day last year and the reduction of the bonus—modified by a number of smaller increases. For instance, there is included in the Sub-head an increased provision of £180,000 for additional staff to meet growth in letter, parcel and telephone traffic, an additional sum of about £60,000 for payment to sub-postmasters in respect of the large increase in the number of contributory old Sage pensions caused by the alteration in the age of pensioners from 70 to 65. There is an additional £200,000 for fresh expenditure caused by the award of the Arbitration Court. On the other hand, as against that, you have to set several decreases caused by the fact that there is one less pay day and the decrease in the cost-of-living bonus, so that there is a net decrease of £579,050 under that Sub-head. Under Sub-head E, there is a reduction of £35,950 in the provision for conveyance of mails. This, again, covers several increases on the one side and decreases on the other.
As regards railway conveyance of letter mails, we have been able to carry through some new arrangements with the principal railway companies on satisfactory terms, and we can take a smaller provision for that in the Estimates as compared with last year. On the other hand, conveyance of parcels by rail, in respect of which railway companies are entitled to 40 per cent. of the postal rate, we provide an additional sum of £86,750 in order to meet anticipated expansion. We have also entered into two new contracts with the Cunard and White Star Lines for the conveyance of the American mail, and as those contracts will come up for ratification in a few days' time—they are on the Order Paper now—I will not say anything about them to-day, but under Subhead E.4 an increased provision of £54,000 is necessary.
Under Engineering Salaries and Wages, there is a large reduction of £330,500, due principally to economy in labour, to reduction in the expenditure on telephone renewals, and, of course, to the fall in the cost-of-living bonus. The provision for stock of engineering stores is down a little bit, as will be seen in Subhead K. Under Sub-head O, Post Office Savings Bank, there is a reduction of £41,370, representing partly fall in bonus and partly economies which have been effected in the administration of the Savings Bank.
With that short comment upon these Subheads, I leave the Vote for the moment altogether, because, as I have frequently explained as a test of Post Office achievement and as a measure of the financial position of the business, the Vote is wholly illusory, because it is purely a cash account. It makes no allowance for depreciation. It is extremely confusing as regards services rendered to other Departments, and for a true picture of Post Office finance you have to go to the commercial accounts. The rest of what I have got to say will be confined to the commercial accounts. Those, of course, are not yet presented to the Committee, and, as I have said more than once, they cannot be available until the autumn. They do not pass the Comptroller and Auditor-General till the autumn and they are not ready for Parliament until the winter, and so it happens that at the time of year in which our discussion of the Estimates
always takes place, the accounts are not available in that form.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: May I ask whether those accounts could nor be prepared so that we could have them before us at the same time as the Estimates?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That has been considered more than once and there are great objections to it. Still, I think I can profitably give sufficient figures to enable the Committee to follow the position. For the year 1927–28 ending on the 31st March the surplus on the postal service was £8,850,000. These figures are all subject to adjustment. The deficit on the telegraph service was £1,389,000 and the surplus on the telephone service £120,000. The total combined surplus for all services was thus £7,581,000, which, I may add, is the largest surplus since commercial accounts began to be kept by the Post Office.

Mr. AMMON: How does that compare with last year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will come to that later. The combined surplus of £7,581,000 is the largest so far in the commercial accounts. It represents an increase in the surplus over last year of £1,800,000. Let me now do what the hon. Gentleman opposite invites me to do, and that is take the items separately. First of all there is the postal side. Postal revenue increased by a sum of £2,900,000. The postal expenditure increased by £900,000, making a net improvement, roughly speaking, of £2,000,000. At the figure at which it stands last year, £8,850,000, the surplus on the postal side of the business is the largest that we have ever had. The resiliency of the postal revenue is really rather remarkable. It would hardly be safe to assume that so abnormal a rate of increase is likely to continue, but there is no reason to suppose that the annual rate of growth in traffic which characterised the period before the War and was from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum, is not going to continue. Of course, with this growth, the operating expenses also rise, as I have explained to the Committee. But at the present rate of charges the operating expenses do not increase at the same ratio as the revenue.
Coming now to the telegraph service, there was in the year 1927–28, as compared with 1926–27, a slight increase of £40,000 in the deficit, but this is more than accounted for by a change in the method of dealing with the receipts from wireless receiving licences, on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. In previous years these receipts, after payment of the cost of collection and the proportion due to the British Broadcasting Corporation, were treated as telegraph net revenue. However, it is now agreed that the inclusion of this balance really had nothing to do with the operation of the telegraph service proper, and that it only obscured the accounts. Accordingly, in 1927–28, we are bringing into account on the telegraph side only the 12½ per cent. which the Post Office receives as the sum due to cover the cost of collection and enforcement. As far as I am able to ascertain, that 12½ per cent. was an extremely good calculation, and almost exactly balances what we estimated for the cost of collection and management of the service.
The decline in the inland telegraph revenue continued in the year, but the position with regard to foreign services was of course much improved. Owing to the inception of the beam wireless service, it new form and a substantial amount of revenue began to come in. Apart from the reduction of the credit for wireless receiving licences, the telegraph revenue, on the whole, improved by about £57,000, while operating expenses, including depreciation, increased by about £32,000. There was, therefore, on the telegraphs a small net improvement of about £25,000. That, however, still leaves a substantial deficit of £1,389,000. About that I shall have something more to say later. On the telephone side, the telephone service working shows a small surplus. Both revenue and operating expenses continue to grew, but the revenue from the trunk service did not show quite the resiliency that I had expected and hoped. No doubt the continuing depression in the heavy industries had something to do with the matter, but there was a period during last year when the trunk revenue did not come up to expectations. However, I am glad to say that there were indications of a distinct improvement in the trunk traffic during recent months.
I ought, however, to point out that some of the comparisons and comments sometimes made by alleged experts, that the result of the combined working of telegraphs and telephones shows a loss of something like £1,270,000 a year and that this shows how bad the management is—that sort of comment really does less than justice to the service, and lees than justice to the unfortunate Postmaster-General, because such a criticism and such comparisons with great enterprises like the Western Union and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company really distort the facts in at least two very important directions. In the first place it ought to be remembered that it has been the deliberate policy of Governments in this country for many years past, as regards the telegraph service, to run it at rates which do not and cannot pay in the interest of commerce generally, and as far as the telephone service is concerned, it has been the policy to run it by giving back a large proportion of the profits in the form of rate concessions to the users and also by carrying a considerable unremunerative fringe of business in rural areas. Both those facts ought to be taken into account.
That is one of the directions in which I say that comparisons of this sort are really distortions of fact. But there is an even more important way in which that sort of comparison lends itself to misrepresentation. It is really incorrect to compare the results of the services I have given with what you might call the profits remaining available for dividend in the case of a private enterprise. In order to give a true comparison when you are dealing with these accounts, you ought to ascertain what is the figure of the profit or loss which is available to meet interest charges; that is to say you ought to ascertain what the profit or loss is after providing for the sums required for operating, for maintenance, and for depreciation, and see what the resultant figure left is then. That is the figure that is available, subject to the qualifications about the policy of reducing charges and the qualification that while figures in the case of a Government service bear a charge for rates they do not bear a charge for taxes, that resultant figure, the gum that is left after providing for operating, maintenance, and depreciation, to
meet interest charges, is the proper comparison with the profits remaining available for dividend in a private enterprise. If you do that, the position takes quite a different shape. You can then see the very real progress which has been made in the last seven years. On that basis the results of 1921–22 working were, that the telegraphs showed, before provision for interest was taken off, a loss of £2,668,771, the telephone showed a profit of £1,095,656, or a combined loss on the joint undertaking of £1,573,115. In 1927–28 the telegraphs showed an estimated loss of £1,023,000, the telephones an estimated profit of £4,201,000, or a combined profit of £3,178,000.
While I am still on the general aspect of the accounts, I might perhaps refer to two activities which, although they do not produce much in the way of net revenue, do form a not unimportant part of Post Office activities. The Post Office Savings Bank business, which of course had been very badly affected in 1926–27 by the industrial difficulties, showed an encouraging recovery last year. The balance due to depositors, which was £282,706,000, at the opening of the financial year, increased by £2,050,000 to £284,756,000 at the end of the year. By normal standards that is not a particularly satisfactory result, but under the conditions I do not think it was bad. The improvement continues, and I hope that the current financial year will show a still better result.
As regards investment business the amount of Government securities held by the Post Office Savings Bank investors in the investment account increased by about £6,264,000 to £201,321,000 during the year. The encashments of National Savings Certificates were exceptionally heavy in 1927–28 owing to the large number of certificates of the first issue which reached maturity. The amount of the certificates outstanding at the beginning of the year was £371,823,000, the repayments £46,772,000, new issues and reissues, £37,416,000, and the total outstanding on 31st March last was £362,467,000.
So much for the general finances of last year. As regards the finances of next year, I am always anxious in committing myself to forecasts, but I will go to the length of saying that I see no reason to
modify my anticipation that the realised surplus in commercial accounts next year will be in the neighbourhood of £9,000,000. I do not go further than that. It is very difficult to make an accurate forecast, and I hope that any figure that I quote will not be brought up in judgment against me.
Let me now deal with one or two rather more detailed matters. I come first of all to a form of activity for which the Post Office has only a vicarious responsibility—broadcasting. The first report of the British Broadcasting Corporation was presented to me a short time ago. I at once laid it on the Table of the House and it is now available to Members in the Vote Office. On the whole I think it can be said, and said fairly, that the institution of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which was an entirely new experiment—I confess that I recommended it to the House with a little trepidation—has justified itself. On the whole it can be said that we have established broadcasting in this country on a foundation which is not merely firm, but which is the envy of many other countries. I told the House of Commons when the Corporation was being set up, the general lines upon which it was proposed to proceed, and I have followed those lines very closely. That is to say that in the ordinary matters of detail and of day to day working, the governors are absolutely masters in their own house. I do not interfere and do not seek to interfere with their absolute freedom in those respects and I hasten to say that, because I observe a certain amount of controversy in sections of the Press about the character of the programmes that are being broadcast. If any hon. Member of the Committee, therefore, is desirous of making remarks on the character of the programmes, all I have to say is that I shall faithfully see that what he says is conveyed to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the governors thereof; but as I told the House of Commons at the time when the Corporation was set up I firmly refuse to have any responsibility whatever myself for these details.
As regards matters of general policy, for which I am prepared to take a certain measure of responsibility—because, of course, we must retain a measure of control over larger matters of general
policy—the most important, probably, is the new regional scheme. After considerable experiments at Daventry, attended with a good many difficulties, but on the whole successful, the British Broadcasting Corporation made up their mind that they would like to embark upon a regional scheme of large twin stations. They applied accordingly last February for authority to begin this system by erecting a high-power station at Brook-man's Park, near Potters Bar, in substitution for 2 LO. After going into the matter with them I have authorised them to proceed with the erection of the station, and it is expected that it will be completed some time next summer. In the first instance, single wave working only will be adopted from that station until it is seen by further experimental tests whether reception from a twin station is generally practicable. On 14th June, the Corporation applied for general permission to proceed with the preliminary steps—that is to say, the search for sites and the consideration of technical details—for twin wave, high-power stations at Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff, and for a single wave, high-power station at Belfast. That application is having consideration at present, and I anticipate I shall be in a position to give permission almost at once, and the search for the actual sites will then have to begin.
As regards Empire broadcasting, I authorised the British Broadcasting Corporation to conduct experiments in short wave broadcasting for the outlying parts of the British Empire, and these experiments are still in progress. The Committee may be interested to hear some of the figures about licences. The total number of wireless receiving licences in force on 30th June last was approximately as follows: Paid licences, 2,506,300; free licences for the blind, 12,772; total, 2,519,072. The number in force on the corresponding date of last year was 2,307,678, showing an increase during the 12 months of 211,394, or over 9 per cent. It may further be of interest to note that the number of licences per 1,000 of the population is regionally distributed as follows: England and Wales, 59; Scotland, 37; and Northern Ireland, 21. The receipts from the licences were divided in the following proportion. The total receipts, as the Committee may be aware, were £1,253,150, and, of that,
£898,804 goes to the British Broadcasting Corporation, while the 12½ per cent. to the Post Office for cost of collection is £156,644, and the balance retained by the Exchequer is £197,702.
Let me now, continuing the detailed examination of the different sections of the work, come to the question of telephones. Here I propose to be as brief as possible, because, during next week or the week after, there will be other opportunities of discussing telephone finance and telephone development. Therefore, I shall content myself at this moment by observing that last year was a record in the matter of telephone development. The net increase in the number of telephone stations was the highest figure yet achieved, namely, 122,405, bringing the total number of stations up to 1,631,191. I am still not particularly proud of the position which this country occupies among the great telephone-using nations of the world All I can say is that we are improving and we are improving fairly rapidly. London, as a matter of fact, stands third among the great cities of the world in the matter of telephone development—a long way behind New York, it is true, but not so very far behind Chicago.

Mr. HURD: What about the rural areas?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I shall deal with that later. First let me make one comment upon a matter in regard to which there has been a distinct improvement in the position. Of course it must happen that in various parts of the country, for one reason or another, there will be occasional delays in providing facilities for service. It is impossible to avoid those delays. Development studies are going on continuously in the Post Office. The possible developments in various areas for a number of years ahead are constantly being considered, and engineering programmes are founded on these development studies, but it is, of course, impossible that these should always be absolutely accurate. There are times when an unexpected demand arises in one part of the country and when there is not sufficient plant to meet that demand and, therefore, you have occasionally delays in the provision of services. No one regrets this fact more
than I do, but I can assure the Committee and the public that the number of such cases is kept as small as human ingenuity can possibly keep it. Further, the position as regards delay has materially improved during the past year. I think I told the Committee before that I always liked to keep a couple of weeks' work in hand, in order to be able to spread out the work evenly, and to cover light periods of construction. If, during the summer, construction work is slack, one can then maintain a level of work and spread it out evenly, but it is always desirable that the amount of work in hand should not go down below two weeks. The Committee will be interested to learn, however, that 73 per cent. of applications for service are being met within three weeks this year as compared with 70 per cent. previously and 83 per cent. are being met within four weeks as compared with 79 per cent., so that on the whole the position as regards delay has improved considerably.
The development of the automatic system continues. There are now 120 automatic exchanges open in different parts of the country, and this year I anticipate that new automatic exchanges will be completed and opened at Bath, Colchester, Middlesbrough and Walsall. In London a start has been made with the conversion of the exchanges to automatic working. There are big difficulties in the introduction of automatic telephones into London, but I may say that London is not more difficult in this respect than other large centres. The same difficulty which obtains in London obtains also in New York and Chicago. The area with which you are dealing is so large that you are not able to follow the method which is followed in dealing with provincial exchanges, that is to say, taking a whole tract of telephone territory and converting it to automatic working at once. You cannot do so in London; there are too many different exchanges, and, therefore, you have to proceed step by step. The result is that the moment you begin to introduce automatic working, and, as long as the period of transition continues, you will have a state of things in a large part of London in which part will be automatic and part will be manual. You have to bridge the gap between the two, and it is in the bridging of the gap that difficulties, such as arose when Holborn was first converted, take place.
Those difficulties have been, and are being, very largely overcome, and the best evidence of that is that the same difficulties have not been found in the case of the other automatic exchange opened in London, namely, Bishopsgate. There are now two open in London, Holborn and Bishopsgate, and six more will be opened, I hope, in the course of this year—Sloane, within a very few weeks, and Western, Monument, Bermondsey, Maida Vale, and Edgware. In the year 1929–1930 there are 12 others scheduled on the programme for conversion to automatic working in London.
I understand some Members of the Committee desire to address themselves especially to rural development, and I would prefer to wait to hear what they have to say before dealing with that aspect of the question. In any event, as I have already said, there will be a further opportunity for discussion of this matter during the coming weeks. I should like to say, however, that when I look back on the figures for the last two years I am well satisfied with the rate of rural development in this country. We have been developing faster than we have ever developed before in the rural areas, and we are developing at a rate which compares satisfactorily with rural development in any other country. We have some fresh ideas on the subject. One of the difficulties with which we have always had to contend has been that of the staffing of small exchanges. Now we think that we are within reach of a small automatic system suitable for a village exchange. I do not know whether our hopes will prove to be well-founded or not, but the experiments which we have conducted on a small scale have been so satisfactory that we are trying a large scale experiment.

Mr. HURD: Will that affect the guarantee?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. Friend is always anticipating me. I do not in the least object to his questions, but I think it would be better to allow me to pursue my own way. I am trying very hard to be brief and it is almost impossible to get over the ground which I want to cover if I am interrupted. I was saying, that the experiments which we have conducted have, so far, been satisfactory and we have
actually placed an order for a number of these machines in order to experiment on a larger scale. If the experiment proves successful the result will be that the maintenance charges of these small exchanges will be reduced; that will affect the loss upon them and that, in turn, will affect the amount of the guarantee. As my hon. Friend has mentioned the guarantee, perhaps I may be allowed to say something on that subject. It has been represented to me from many parts of the country that valuable as the guarantee method is—and it is a very necessary and valuable part of the system because it enables development to take place in areas where the Post Office itself could not afford to start development—yet, in the form in which it has worked up to the present, there has been a certain deterring element which has affected those who might otherwise have been willling to become guarantors. That deterring element has been this, that we have estimated let us say that the cost of working a particular call office is going to be £30. We desire to cover ourselves against that loss, and we have estimated, for our own private information, that the revenue from the call office may possibly be expected to amount to £20; and the guarantee for which we have asked has been one of £30 and not of £10. If our estimate was realised and £20 was collected, all that the guarantors would be asked to find would be £10 but still the fact that they were asked to give a guarantee of £30 has undoubtedly exercised a deterrent effect.
I am prepared to tell the Committee with the concurrence of the Treasury, that I am going to alter that; in future the Post Office will assess what the revenue is which it expects to get from a call office, and the guarantee asked for will only be the difference between that estimate and the estimated amount of the cost. It follows, of course, that any revenue which accrues is, in the first place to be credited against the Post Office estimate, and not till that is exhausted will it begin to be credited against the guarantee, but I am assured, as I said to a deputation representative of all parties in the House which attended at the Post Office on this subject, that that will meet a great deal of the difficulty that has been created in the
way of checking development in the rural areas; and, if so, I shall be very glad.
I must hasten on to say a word about the Inland Telegraph Service. I have already given the general financial results, and the Committee will have seen that there is little change in the general trend of these results. Indeed, there has been very little change in regard to the Inland Telegraph Service ever since 1885, when the 6d. telegram was introduced, on a private Member's Motion in this House. There has been since then a continuing deficit, which has varied in the last decade from something like £3,000,000 down to the figure of between £1,500,000 and £1,250,000 at which it stands now. I mention this because, possibly largely owing to the way in which, no doubt from considerations of space, the Report of the Hardman Lever Committee has been recorded in the Press, it is undoubtedly a fact that the impression has been produced on the public mind that an entirely new and unsuspected state of financial decrepitude has been revealed by an inquiry which someone has forced on a reluctant Postmaster-General.
The facts are, of course, entirely contrary. I found that for two generations every Government in turn, Liberal, Conservative, Coalition, and Socialist, had always accepted this substantial loss on the working of the Inland Telegraph Service as something inevitable; and, apart from the very simple expedient resorted to by the Administration of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) of doubling the charges, they had accepted this position I ought to except Mr. Hobhouse when he was Postmaster-General, because Mr. Hobhouse did appoint a committee of very much the same sort as I recently appointed, but the War intervened, their work was cut short, and nothing further was done in that direction. Having regard to this fact and to the views which I held on the subject, I started in the Department two years ago a review of the administrative position with a view to securing further economies. We reached certain conclusions and began the necessary revisions, but it was clear that even with those revisions there was still going to be a very large gap.
All sorts of suggestions were made, from all sorts of quarters, as to how that gap should be filled—from Members of Parliament, from the Press, from private individuals, and from commercial organisations—and they all had different methods. Some were in favour of increasing charges, some were in favour of reducing charges, some were in favour of zone charges, some were in favour of a system of inverted zone charges; and so I decided that I would invoke the aid of three of the best business brains that, I could command and ask them to advise whether anything, and, if so, what, could be done to fill up this gap. I deliberately asked three gentlemen from the outside world, not, as has been suggested, because I was anxious to use their Report as ammunition for an attack on a Government Service, but because, having lived, as I have done, in both worlds, I knew the difficulties which inhere in Civil Service administration, and I wished to see how far they regarded the problem as soluble as a matter of administration, and, if so, how far any of their plans could be dovetailed into the system.
The answer is frankly disappointing, because the Committee found that, even given the most favourable conditions of management by private enterprise, on ordinary commercial lines, the gap could not be filled, and their only suggestion for effecting a substantial reduction in the gap lies in an increase of rates to the public. I am not altogether surprised, because I had reached practically the same conclusion from the inquiry which I made myself, but I am most grateful to the Committee for their examination of this very difficult problem, and although I do not agree altogether with all their conclusions, I think the only matter that calls for criticism and regret is that the most vital paragraph in their Report is so worded that inferences have been drawn from it by critics which are really quite unfair and quite unwarranted by the facts. This matter is really so important that, at the risk of detaining the Committee for a few moments longer, I must explain exactly what has happened. The Committee say, in paragraph 24 of their Report:
It is difficult for the Committee to express in figures what savings might be effected with an efficient staff and manage-
ment; but in the course of the inquiry evidence was given by practical telegraph men that on the assumption of a free hand as in a commercial enterprise, and with a wider use of machine printing telegraphs, savings varying from 20 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. of the present operating staff costs could probably be made, and the Committee see no reason to disagree with this view.
This paragraph has been widely quoted by critics as amounting to a statement that the present conditions are so inefficient that, if properly revised and with a free hand, operating costs can be cut down by from 20 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent.; and I am not saying that operating costs cannot be cut down. That is precisely what I have been trying to set out to achieve, but I confess that when I read that statement it staggered me, because I thought it was most remarkable that, after I had been groping after savings for months, it should be suggested that the operating heads of my own Department should all the time have had these savings lying right to their hands; and I may tell the Committee at once that I demanded to know what were the savings which had been suggested, and why they had not been suggested to me. When I went into the facts, I found, as no doubt some Members of the Committee have already guessed—those, at least, who have had experience of control of largish undertakings and who know what the methods of the operating side are—that what they said was something quite different. The evidence, so far from supporting such a conclusion, simply negatived it.
What the operating heads said was exactly what the operating side always does say under these circumstances, namely, that their estimated savings in costs from 20 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. were not absolute; they were hypothetical. They depended upon the creation of a set of conditions ideally perfect from the point of view of operating costs of production, but which had and could have no relation whatever to actual practice. What did they postulate? Their postulate was, in the first place, an entirely new Central Telegraph Office, with the transfer of all the mass of cables to the new situation, at a capital cost which I have not begun to attempt to measure; in the second place, a large expenditure on new apparatus; in the
third place, the ruthless scrapping of all operators except those of fullest vigour; in the fourth place, a system of piece work; and, in the fifth place, a slowing down of the speed of service. Shortly, they said what the operating side always does say under these circumstances, namely, "We can give you such-and-such a reduction in operating costs if we are giver absolutely hew machinery, piecework rates, and the maximum of efficiency output."
I am not for a moment suggesting that these gentlemen who expressed these views to the Committee either recommenced such progress as financially wise or as being just to the staff, but they did answer, to the best of their ability, the question, "If you had a free hand, how far could you cut costs?" It is a little difficult, however, to read this from the wording of the Report, and still more from some of the glosses placed on the Report by the critics. I am very sorry still to detain the Committee, but there is so much ground to cover. [Interruption.] I will bring my observations to a close at this point if it is desired, but I think it is a little unfair that I should be asked to do so, because there has been a certain amount of comment with regard to the observations of the Hardman Lever Committee on the work of the Inland Telegraph Service, and this is the first opportunity I have had of saying anything at all about it, in Parliament. I will try to be as short as I can, but there are one or two things I ought to say, because the position has been left rather obscure, and I think I ought to do what I can to clear up the points.
I Lave cleared up already one of the points which was most obscure in the Report, and I should like to say this further, that the existence of a deficit on this portion of the Post Office work is not a phenomenon which is singular to Great Britain. On the contrary, it is the common experience of practically every Government in Europe. They take the view that an efficient telegraph service confers such advantage on the citizens in general, and in the amelioration of conditions of life in general, that it is worth running, even if it be run at a loss. There is much to be said for that, and it ought
to be borne in mind by some of those who are always rushing off to America for comparisons with regard to telegraph work in order to draw conclusions derogatory to State management. It is not my business to indulge in any party polemics to-day, and as I have said before, I am not enamoured of State trading. Although it has fallen to me during the last 12 years to have had more association with the conduct of State trading than any other man in this country and, I think, probably than any other man in the world, except Mr. Hoover, I am still not enamoured of it. This is not the occasion for discussing that question, but I do recognise that the case against State trading is only weakened by fallacious comparisons.
5.0 p.m.
I read one scribe who contrasted the deficit on the Inland Telegraph Service here, according to the Hardman Lever Report, with the enormous surplus gained by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. He founded on that an argument against State management, but when I read that sort of thing I am inclined as an anti-Socialist to say, "Heaven save me from my friends," because the American Telegraph and Telephone Company has nothing telegraphic about it except its name. It does not operate one single mile of telegraphs. The real truth is that the conditions of physical geography in America and the large distances between centres materially contribute to help telegraphic developments.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: On a point of Order. Would it be in order to invite the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech, which we are all enjoying, and to give us another half-day?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not understand the last remark.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: This is a Liberal Supply day—half a day. We want to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to continue, for we are enjoying his speech. Will he give us another half day?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It is anything but enjoyable to make a speech
on a day when the temperature is what it is at present. I am faced with a certain difficulty, because this is the occasion upon which it has always been customary to have an annual review of the work of the Post Office, and it is very difficult for hon. Members to appreciate what the position is unless I try, as far as I can, to explain it. It is not my fault that the Debate falls on such a short day. That is a matter in the charge, not of any party, but of the authorities of the House. A Debate on Private Business is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and no reflection can be made on him. However, I will be as short as I possibly can. I should like just to make this point, that distance in America is pro tanto an advantage to the development of a telegraphic system, because they do not get the same competition with mails as is the case in this country. For instance, take the distance from New York to Chicago and from Glasgow to London. If a man in New York makes up his mind at six o'clock on a Monday afternoon to post a letter, and he wants to communicate with Chicago and posts the letter, it reaches Chicago the first delivery on Wednesday morning. A man in London, however, has the first delivery on Tuesday morning of a letter posted at the same time for Glasgow. If the American wants to telephone, it costs him 3.25 dollars or 13s. 4d. It costs the Englishman 5s. 9d. For a telegram of 20 words, it costs the American 95 cents or 3s. 11d., and in England it costs 1s. 8d. Therefore, from the geographical point of view alone, there are considerable natural advantages which a telegraph service enjoys in a large country like America, which are not enjoyed by the telegraph service in a comparatively small country like ours.
I might say of the Report of the Hardman Lever Committee that, although it is very helpful in many respects, it seems to me to lack definiteness, because they failed to distinguish between, on the one hand, a less costly telegraphic service, and on the other hand, one giving greater speed. It is possible to achieve either of these alternatives, but you can only gain acceleration in speed by an increased operating cost, and that cost increases in geometrical ratio to the
increasing speed. The Committee will appreciate this if they realise how large are the variations in peak load, which occur not only in the course of the day, but between one month and another. The peak load in the Central Telegraph Office varies from a minimum rate of 2,000 telegrams an hour between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. up to a peak load of 12,000 an hour between 11 o'clock and noon. Its variation from month to month can be seen by the fact that there were 2,000,000 telegrams in February, and 2,700,000 in July. It will therefore be seen that, if you are trying to get anything like a normal rate of speed, you have to try and have your system so adjusted as to deal with the normal rate of traffic. If you get extra acceleration, you can only do it at the expense of having too many staff. To get an acceleration at the peak hour, you will find yourself with a surplus of staff when the traffic is at the lowest. It is fair to say in this country that our average normal speed challenges comparison with any other country. In the United States there are two great systems, the Western Union and the Mackay, and where there is competition you get an excellent service. In the towns of America the telegraphic service is very much worse than our own, and in the rural parts of America it ceases really to have any pretensions to be a telegraphic service at all. In Germany the ordinary telegraphic service is much slower. They have a system of urgent telegrams at triple the ordinary rate, and a lightning service at 30 times the ordinary rate.
Our best service in this country compares favourably with the best American practice, and with the German lightning service. Our average normal speed of telegraphic operations is certainly up to that of any other country in the world, and is I think a great deal better than most of them. Indeed, I believe it is true to say that it is better than any other. There are a number of other points on the mail side of the business with which I should like to have dealt. I should like to have said something about mail vans and about the development of air mails, and I have one or two matters which I should like to have told the Committee about the Post Office tube, but, in the circumstances, I appreciate that it would not be fair to ask the
Committee to listen to me any longer. I must apologise for having taken so long, but the Committee will appreciate my difficulty. The Postmaster-General is in the position of the chairman of a large concern reporting to the shareholders, and it is difficult to do that concisely if it is to be complete. However, I have done my best to compress my remarks as far as I can, and I am grateful to the Committee for the attention which they have given to me.

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is clear from the speech to which we have just listened that for the variety and magnitude of its operations, the Post Office of this country is without parallel in our political and social life. It touches our domestic life at every corner, and it is intimately connected with our industrial and commercial welfare. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend when he entered a caveat at the beginning of his speech against undue criticism. When operations are of such a gigantic nature, as it is clear that they are from the speech to which we have just listened, criticism ought to be fair and just. What struck the Committee is the fact that, not only is this the greatest Department in the State, but it is a Department which is ever growing and expanding. It is a most significant fact to hear that the Postmaster-General himself estimates a surplus next year of something like £9,000,000. That is a very striking and extraordinary figure. The Committee, notwithstanding the length of the speech, will no doubt have noticed that the Postmaster-General, through lack of time, did not refer to many things which are at the moment exciting the public mind.
I refer particularly to the latest reports with regard to the Imperial Cable Conference. There may be some doubt whether this can be discussed on the Post Office Vote, but it is clear to anybody who studies the situation that, obviously, this is an administrative act where the Post Office is very directly concerned. The Committee unfortunately have had to rely upon the intelligent anticipation of the Press for its information, and I should like to ask the Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General, in his reply, to answer one or two questions. It is rather a pity that the Press should be the first, whether by intelligent
anticipation or otherwise, to convey to the public the information which ought to have been given in this House first. I would like to ask the Noble Lord whether the Report has been signed, and what are the terms of the scheme submitted to the Imperial Government? I understand that a new communications company is to be instituted.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am very reluctant to interrupt, but I ought to explain to you, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman appears to be dealing with what purports to be the Report of the Imperial Cable Conference, of which I was not a member and of which officially I have no knowledge.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps that the right hon. Gentleman might refer to the fact that this Conference has sat, but I do not think that it is a matter that can be discussed on this Vote.

Sir. W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not want to stop my right hon. Friend in any way. All I was pointing out was that he has started to discuss what he believes to be the details of a Report, about which obviously I can say nothing.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I should like to ask a question which I think the Noble Lord can answer. Is this communications company to be administered on private ownership lines, with semi-public control or is it not? I understand that the Post Office has reserved to itself the right to maintain the telephones. Is this communications company going to be in the nature of a public utility company, or is the Post Office advocating that it should be a State company and nothing else? That is a very important point, and the public ought to be informed about it as soon as possible. There is one suggestion that I have seen made in connection with this and it has a great bearing upon the Debate to-day. The suggestion is that any profits which arise out of the successful running of this new company over 50 per cent. should be used in reducing the charges to the public and in providing additional facilities. We on this side of the Committee welcome that proposal. It is a principle which should govern the working of the Post
Office of this country, it is a principle which was meant to govern the working of the Post Office, but one Postmaster after another has gradually departed from that principle, and what do we find to-day?
The Post Office of this country, like the Ministry of Transport, is gradually becoming an appanage of the Treasury. The ruling principle now seems to be that whatever Post Office profits there are shall become an intergral part of the central finances of the country. Many years ago that would have been a quite untenable position, and I understood from my right hon. Friend that he, at any rate, was going to make a strong stand against that principle. The proper way in which the Post Office should be run is the way in which any respectable, expanding industry is run, that is, the profits which are made out of that industry are kept in reserve or put back into the business. What do we find here? Yearly the profits are becoming greater. That is no concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the more the profits the more anxious he is to get them. The result is that we are to-day faced with the fact that the inland postal service is worse than it was before the War, a condition of things which is quite intolerable. Obviously, the profits of the Post Office ought to go towards cheapening the service and improving its efficiency, but the reverse is the case, and notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said in his speech, the condition of affairs with regard to delivery of letters and postal facilities generally is worse to-day than it was in 1913–14. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but within the last week I myself have sent him three or four cases which support my contention.
Not only is the service worse, but it acts against the very worst principle in public administration, because it flouts the wishes of the entire community. I sent a case to him from Ross-shire, where a system, and a very good system, had been in existence for many years and was accepted by the community. Suddenly somebody comes along and at his instigation, the whole of that administration is upset and the wishes of the entire community are flouted. That is a condition of things which is quite intolerable. I would like my right hon. Friend to pay particular attention to that case; I
am sure it is one case of many. Where to-day is the flaunted daily delivery which we were promised immediately after the War? At Question Time I have often listened to hon. Members' in all parts of the House asking for a revival of the old daily delivery in the rural parts of their constituencies. I am not speaking for the North of Scotland alone, but for all rural districts in Wales and England and in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman might very well be reminded of a phrase which was used last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). He said the Postmaster-General to-day
is selling inferior services for much higher prices."—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 20th July, 1925; col. 1902, Vol. 186.]
That, in a nutshell, is the condition of affairs in all the rural parts of this country. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word about a return to penny postage. Surely that is a matter of great importance to the public to-day. We have heard on other occasions of derating, of lowering the rates so that productive industry may be assisted. There is not a single business man who is not complaining of the high cost of postage, and longing for and pressing for a return to the old days of penny postage. In 1925 my right hon. Friend became Postmaster-General. We all felt that he, in any case, would put up a good fight for a revival of the good old days. He promised us that he would. I have here a quotation from his speech:
As and when we"—
that is, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself—
can afford it, we shall revert to the system of penny postage. It remains one of the objectives of our policy, and we hope to be able to achieve it within the lifetime of the present Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1925; col. 1864, Vol. 186.]
Why, penny postage is farther away than ever, judging by the speech which has just been delivered. Will my right hon. Friend tell us now that he intends, along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to pledge the Government that we are to have penny postage within the lifetime of the present Pariament? That was the pledge given three years ago, but there is no sign that it is being fulfilled.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not suggest that the pledge has been qualified, but I would remind my right hon. Friend that it was given before the general strike.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I had a feeling that some such explanation would be given. The general strike is held to be responsible for many things. I have found it provides a very useful answer from the Treasury Bench on occasions. But I remember that the Postmaster-General in the Labour Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), stated in the same year—1925—in that very Debate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government and himself had made up their minds to revive penny postage in that year but were awaiting the finding in the Sutton judgment case. So at that time it was very near. To-day, as I have said, it is much farther away than it has ever been. If we do not get penny postage at home, there is very little chance of what many of us are longing to see again, and that is Imperial penny postage. The right hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that there is nothing so useful in cementing the Empire as free and frequent communication and personal contact. The Dominion of New Zealand has led the way in this respect, and its publicists are daily trying to get the Empire as a whole to come into line with it and to establish Imperial penny postage. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore:
Supposing in 1924, there had been a revival of penny postage, what is the estimate of the additional number of letters which would be carried in this country?
His reply was that he estimated there would be 300,000,000 more letters posted. That an itself would make up what is now obtained from the extra halfpenny which is being charged. The second point with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt concerned inland telegraphs. It is quite clear that the inland telegraph department has been declining, and the reason for that is not far to seek. Indeed, there are two reasons. One is the reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and that is that it is in direct competition with the more efficient telephone service. The right hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time in justifying
his Department in face of the attacks of the Hardman Lever Report. I do not think there was ever so scathing an indictment of a system as is contained in that report. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to remedy the things pointed out in that report? On page 11, the Committee say in paragraph 17:
The fact that the telegraph service has come to be regarded as a diminishing business has introduced an atmosphere of inertia, and the resiliency which would be found in a progressive business is lacking. The Committee are of opinion that the present deficit can be attributed to a considerable extent to the foregoing causes, coupled with the effects of Civil Service conditions, to which reference is made later, together with redundancy of staff, rotation of duties and the grading of work.
The right hon. Gentleman told us he took very great pains in selecting the members of that Committee. Their names are household words in the business world. They went very carefully into this particular branch of his Department. They examined everybody and everything, and they came to the conclusion that this Department wants a thorough over-hauling. That report has been in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman for nearly a year.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It was issued in January of this year.

Mr. MACPHERSON: In any case, six or seven months have elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman got the Report. Has he done anything? Perhaps in the course of this Debate he will tell us what he has done, because, as I have said, this is a scathing and damning indictment of his Department, and he cannot now ride off by saying that they have misconstrued instructions, did not quite appreciate what was meant. In black and white they have condemned that Department as being utterly and wholly unsatisfactory. Let me take one or two things they have said. They say:
If the telegraph service is to be satisfactory it must have two essentials. It must have a high standard of service, with speed and accuracy, and you must abolish minor irritations.
The telegraph itself is probably getting out of date, but this telegraph department is much out of date. My hon. Friend who represents Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) is continually rais-
ing a question which concerns the inland telegraph department. Between the mainland and the islands there is a telegraph cable, but he has been asking that the Postmaster-General should now establish a wireless system of communication between them. Two years ago, as he stated in a speech in this House, it took five months in one case and seven months in another for the repair ship to come round to repair the cable. That is not 20th century civilisation. That is not the work of a first-class Department. That is the work of a moribund Department. If, as the Postmaster-General says, wireless is making progress by leaps and bounds, it ought to be utilised to secure efficiency and good work for this country. I have no doubt my hon. Friend who represents Orkney and Shetland will have a good deal more to say. I have merely quoted that case as one of the instances which show that the Department is not up to date. It is utterly out of date, and the sooner a new Commission is appointed to find out how quickly and how efficiently things can be remedied, the better for the Department and for the right hon. Gentleman.
I was very glad to hear from him that there has been an enormous advance in the telephone system of this country. He himself said, not so very long ago, that it was not consistent with the dignity or the commercial importance of this country that our telephone system should occupy so lowly a place in the world. I have had put into my hands this morning a letter from the National Union of Manufacturers. They give figures to show that the telephone density in this country is the lowest among the civilised countries of the world.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Oh, dear me, no!

Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly, they are at the bottom of my list, and I will read them. They say that the telephone density in Great Britain as compared with other countries is less than that of any other civilised country in the world, and consequently there is a lot of leeway to be made up. Here are the figures: The United States, 148; Canada, 130; Denmark, 91; New Zealand, 91; Sweden, 72; Norway, 65; Australia, 62; Switzerland, 50; Germany, 41; and Great Britain is at the bottom of the list with
31. These are very significant figures. There is no doubt that in this country people must be encouraged to develop what I will call the telephone habit. You must advertise the telephone and make people more familiar with it. I think the Postmaster-General is responsible for the remark that, if from each telephone machine one additional call was instituted in this country, it would be equivalent to an additional revenue of £2,000,000. That is a significant fact, and is it not therefore worth while spending more time and trouble on the development of this fine and useful piece of machinery in the public life and industry of this country?
It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech, that in every progressive industry there must be a fringe of unremunerative traffic. The Post Office obviously must lose when they start a new extension, and that must be doubly true when you start an extension on the outskirts of a system. I would like to point out, however, that this House has never refused money for any proposal for the extension of the telephone system, and, when the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with proposals for the extension of the telephone, I am sure no one will oppose him, because we see that the telephone is becoming essential to the industry and life of this country. The Postmaster-General himself said that although there was a great difficulty in starting a new exchange, he found from experience that the moment you started an exchange you immediately increased the number of subscribers. That is a very significant fact. It is obvious that the presence of these machines tends to make people more familiar with their use, and by that means you increase the number of subscribers. Surely business dictates that if you continue to develop the outskirts you will be developing more and more one of the greatest boons that has ever come to the industrial life of this country. It is an old story that supply will always make a demand.
I was glad to hear that the Postmaster-General was paying particular attention to rural telephones. Like other hon. Members, I am interested in a rural constituency, and in seeing that rural telephones are established. I must confess, however, that there is still a great
deal of impediment in the way, and I was glad to hear that my right hon. Friend was going to review the guarantee system. That has always been an obnoxious system, and one which has favoured the rich against the poor. It has been established upon a sort of flat-rate business without rhyme or reason. It has been laid down that you must get eight subscribers, but there are many cases where you cannot get even seven subscribers to come forward with the amount which has to be guaranteed to the Treasury. My opinion is that the minimum number is too high, and eight is a ridiculous number. I could point out case after case in rural parts of Scotland where you can easily get six subscribers, but it is impossible to get eight. Another point is that the rents are too high. You are charging £7 10s. in some rural districts for a telephone, but that is an enormous rent in the case of a farmer who uses the telephone only on market day. Again, the costs of construction are enormous. I know perfectly well—my right hon. Friend is entitled to have this stated in his favour—that, the further you are from the main system and the more you go into the rural districts, obviously the costs must be higher. I cannot help thinking when I go to remote parts of Scotland that the poles and the wires which I see are almost of too high a class for the work which they are called upon to do. I may be wrong, but I have no doubt that the quality of the speech reception is better with a better wire, but it would be possible to get satisfactory results with a cheaper quality. I think you might get a good pole from the roadside instead of having a highly-polished pole.
I would like the Postmaster-General to consider the question of rates and cost of installing the telephone in those parts where it is not so much used, but where it is nevertheless very essential. If you road the health reports from various parts of this country, you will find that every single medical report says that the country districts will never be thoroughly equipped for health purposes in connection with the doctors and the hospitals until we have an efficient telephone system. Surely, with such a surplus as £9,000,000 coming in next year, the Postmaster-General and
Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider what can be done in regard to reports of that kind. The public welfare demands that part of this surplus should be devoted to the alleviation of the lot of the people in our country districts. In many parts, there is no way of communicating with a doctor 40 miles away except over the telephone. Look at the advantage that would be conferred upon country people if they had provided for them a cheap and efficient telephone system. If the farmer was able to communicate with his brother farmers within a certain radius to find out the latest news from the market town, and get to know whether there was a demand for this or that kind of stock, it would save him an enormous amount of trouble, and he would not need to travel many miles by train and by road in order to get that information. If you want to benefit health and agriculture, it is upon those lines that you will be able to benefit them most effectively.
I was glad to hear that there has been a great extension in the public call offices, but I would like to press upon my right hon. Friend one fact with regard to the public call offices. I think that in every one of the rural districts in England, Wales and Scotland there should be a public telephone at every rural post office. We do not want an ornamental expensive telephone box, but we want a box made of good plain deal. I want facilities for rich and poor alike in the more remote parts of this country in order that the people may get into touch with the railway station, the doctor, the minister, or any of those who form a most important part in the body politic and the social life of the remote country districts of this country.
I sat on the Committee which dealt with broadcasting, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman said that he has only a vicarious responsibility in these matters, that he is not a broadcaster but merely a transmitter, and that he was not going to be responsible for the programme. Consequently, I will not criticise him so far as the programmes are concerned, but I would like to transmit to him the general feeling of the people in regard to broadcasting programmes. They say that the public like more variety, and they like it light. They
also say that they find the programme intolerably didactic, and the music, I am told, is mostly chamber music and more highbrow than the ordinary man likes to hear.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was developing a regional scheme. I would like to ask if that affects the North of Scotland. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) has been pressing the right hon. Gentleman to get a high-power station established in the North of Scotland. I understand that the Postmaster-General has complete power with regard to the establishment of these high-power stations, and I would like him to give further consideration to the request which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose on behalf of the North of Scotland to establish a high-power station there. I hope I have said sufficient to show that there is much need for improvement, particularly in part of the service of this great Department. May I assure the Postmaster-General that if he makes efforts in the interests of the community as a whole, and of industry in particular, to tackle the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these questions, he will have the whole-hearted support of every Member of this House. The Postmaster-General is in control of a service which affects the life of the entire community and the industry, commerce and well-being of the country as a whole, and I think it is high time that he resisted the bureaucratic encroachments of the dead hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: I think we are all prepared to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) in expressing our warm appreciation of the clearness and fullness of the most interesting speech which has been delivered by the Postmaster-General. I am not quite so sure as regards the observations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty himself, because he was not quite so clear as regards the true basis of the finance of the Post Office. The Post Office telegraph and telephone services are, after ail, run by the Government as a business, and they are run in order to make a profit. If that be so, the first question that arises
is whether that profit should be put back into the business or not. That question should be judged on its merits. I only mean that it cannot in all cases be a foregone conclusion that every penny of money earned by this great Service can go back into the Post Office services themselves.
The observations of the Postmaster-General included one which seemed to me to transcend the interest of a single Department, and really to rise to a question of constitutional importance. I refer to what he told us about the attitude that he takes, and, no doubt, is obliged to take, in regard to the services rendered by the Broadcasting Corporation. I express every sympathy with him in that attitude. The responsibility for programmes is not one that anybody would lightly undertake. I would also register the fact that in that attitude my right hon. Friend has been perfectly consistent throughout, and it has to some extent to be conditioned by the provisions of the Statute. Does it not become clear to us that what was feared by some of us at the outset is happening, namely, that the arrangements and status of the Broadcasting Corporation are really landing us in a complete impasse?
Are there not two possible arrangements which are businesslike in the conduct of such a service? The first is a commercial arrangement. If the service is not found to be satisfactory, the consumers have their remedy; the profits of the concern fall away, the enraged shareholders meet and turn out the Board, and a more efficient Board is put in. Even in the case of a monopoly there is some such remedy as this, in the case of a commercial undertaking, through the shareholders and the pressure of opinion on the part of the consumers. In this case we have not a commercial arrangement. The only other arrangement that we have yet devised in our methods of conducting affairs in the civilised world is what I would call the arrangement of Ministerial responsibility, and that also gives the general public an opportunity of making their voice heard. They can come here on such an occasion as this and say what they think to the Postmaster-General; and, in the last resort, our constitutional remedy would be to reduce the salary of the Postmaster-General, and thus compel
him to take action and reform the Broadcasting Corporation.
It is quite clear, however, from our proceedings to-day, that we have not that remedy either, and we are in a most unfortunate position from the point of view of the public as regards the Broadcasting Corporation. Let me hasten to intervene with this observation, that I myself have no criticism to make of the programmes. I think that on the whole they are as good as can be expected at the outset of a new art and a new craft. It is not because I complain of the programmes that I think this point should be made; it is because I think we are drifting into a position which is not workable under our Constitution, a position in which we have a corporation that is responsible to no one, on which commercial pressure cannot be brought to bear, and on which the ordinary constitutional pressure of ministerial responsibility cannot be brought to bear.
Of course, there are many occasions on which a Minister in the position of the Postmaster-General has to get up and say, "This is no affair of mine; I cannot interfere"; but I think it would be found on examination that those occasions are always of one sort—they are occasions in connection with which there is a judicial responsibility confided to the body in question. A judicial responsibility must consist of responsibility in one or other of two classes of proceedings—either proceedings by way of litigation between two parties, in which an impartial decision has to be given, or something in the nature of an inquest or inquiry, in which an impartial report has to be made. Those are judicial proceedings in which, of course, the Minister cannot interfere; but there is no such judicial nature in the functions of the Broadcasting Corporation. They are purely commercial; they are a service rendered to the State—a service of such importance that I cannot see how, in the long run, a Minister can possibly escape responsibility for their conduct.
I can imagine that the answer which would be given, according to the theory on which the Broadcasting Corporation was erected, is that the Broadcasting Corporation is in the position of a public utility company, and that the
Minister need be no more responsible for the services that it performs than he is, for instance, responsible for the services of water or gas supply by a public utility corporation. I do not think, however, that that analogy holds good. The Minister of Health, for instance, is now not responsible for services in connection with gas supply which are discharged by a local public utility corporation, because that is a matter of restricted local interest; but, surely, if there were only one great gas corporation in the whole country, exercising a monopoly over the whole of the gas services of the country, it would be quite impossible for the Minister of Health to escape responsibility for it. Supposing that the gas services of some great city were being inefficiently rendered, one cannot suppose that the Minister of Health would escape the closest pressure on the subject in this House. That is a service which only affects the physical welfare of the country; the service rendered by the Broadcasting Corporation affects the whole moral and mental welfare of the country.
I believe we can see very clearly that it will be impossible for ministerial responsibility for the services of the Broadcasting Corporation to be avoided. I do not say that it is necessarily the Postmaster-General who should discharge that responsibility. On the contrary, it may well be that some other Minister will be found more appropriate. In such a Debate as we are having to-day we find ourselves experiencing the position which I have described. One of the most important services lies before the country for development—a great, new development which is going to have an immense effect on the future of the culture of the country; and when we find that we have none of the commercial or constitutional remedies to which I have referred, we see before us a position which is impossible.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I think that Members of the Committee on this side of the House would willingly have listened to the Postmaster-General for a longer period than his remarks occupied, especially in view of the fact that he spent a good deal of the time at his disposal in putting forward a point of
view that must have been exceedingly uncomfortable for his subordinate. He has had a good deal to say about the Hardman Lever Report, and to the Postmaster-General, obviously, that Report is as unsatisfactory as it is to those of us who regard it as an exceedingly biased document. I do not think that any Commission of recent years has been so unsatisfactory in its formation and in its conduct of its commission as the Hardman Lever Commission has been. It is all very well to talk about business men of the finest type that can be found for such a purpose as that of investigating the telegraph business of the nation; but these business men, to my mind at any rate, and to the minds of most of us on this side, did not conduct their investigations in a very businesslike way.
I do not want to make any personal attacks, and I certainly do not mean anything of a personal nature, but I do think that the appointment of Sir Samuel Hardman Lever himself, for such a purpose as an inquiry into the administration of the national telegraphs, was a very unfortunate one. He is a director of a big trustified business in this country which has a great deal to do with telegraphs, and which is affected very considerably by the incidence of the management of the telegraphs for the nation. He is a director of the "Daily Mail," and £500,000 of the deficit on the telegraphs is accounted for by the rates at which Press telegrams are taken by the State. I am open to correction, of course, but I do not think I am far wrong when I say that the difference between what would ordinarily be charged and what is actually charged to the newspapers of this country for the transmission of Press telegrams amounts to something approximating to £500,000 a year. [Interruption.] I will withdraw that statement if it is contradicted by the responsible Minister.
That is a very great and a very important sum. I know, of course, that the Hardman Lever Report advocated an increase, and not a decrease, in the charges for Press telegrams, but that does not make any difference in regard to my strictures upon the unfortunate appointment of Sir Samuel Hardman Lever to that Commission, because the
cost of Press telegrams to the "Daily Mail" is a matter of minor account. They have their own private wires, and they are a kind of business corporation which spends very heavily upon administrative and technical details of that description. Where, however, a corporation of that kind is affected is in the effect of an increase in the cast of Press telegrams upon the competitors of newspapers like the "Daily Mail." If such an increase is made, the competitors which the Rothermere Press Trust is rapidly buying up are going to suffer, and from that standpoint, in the first place, I think it was very undesirable that this particular question should be adjudicated upon by such a person, however admirable and valuable he may have been in other directions, as Sir Samuel Hardman Lever.
6.0 p.m.
Then, again, with regard to the actual work done by the Commission, they spent two months in investigating the subject. I suggest that a two months' investigation is not sufficient to justify the statements made in the Report of the Commission upon the managament of the telegraphs of this country, and, especially, is not sufficient to justify the implications of those statements and the use made of those implications by people who want to argue against any policy of nationalisation in regard to the telegraph services of this country. I understand that an hour's visit was paid by the Commission to the Central Telegraph Office in order to find out what was wrong with British telegraphs. Another illustration of the casual and, apparently, haphazard way in which the Commission was conducted, is found in the fact that the Union of Post Office Workers sent to the Commission a deputation prepared to make proposals of a character which they considered to be valuable, and that deputation was received by two members only of the Commission, who were in a desperate hurry, and one of those members left before the deputation had a chance to make the full statement that they desired to make with regard to their views about the conduct of the telegraphs of the country. On those grounds I think that we are entitled to consider very carefully and with very important reservations the Report of that Commission. What the Commission did not point out
with regard to the telegraph services of the country from a financial point of view is the fact that, apart from the vast amount that the service loses in making favourable terms with the newspapers of the country—[Interruption]. It is all very well for hon. Members to shake their heads and say, "No," but it is a fact that Press telegrams are charged at a very much lower rate than ordinary telegrams. That is a present to the newspapers.

Mr. GROTRIAN: It is a bargain that has been made with them for some years.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not doubt it, but when that bargain is used against the financial solvency of the telegraph service, and as an argument against public enterprise, we are entitled to point out that that present is being made year by year to the newspapers. The telegraph service is the inheritor of another bargain of a very disgraceful character. The Government bought out the private companies because they were mismanaging the service, and they did it at a fantastic price. It was described by Mr. Goschen, of all people, as wicked, stupendous and monstrous. The companies' plant was purchased at £2,000,000, and the nation paid £10,880,571 for it, and the telegraphs have had to pay interest upon that amount ever since.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON indicated dissent.

Mr. MONTAGUE: It is rather extraordinary that these contradictions should be made. I have endeavoured to get accurate statistics on the matter. We are surely paying interest on the amount charged for the companies' plant. I shall be very grateful to have particulars as to how much interest we are paying. My information is that it is 3 per cent., and, if that is so, the difference between the value and the inflated price we pay amounts to another £250,000. I am afraid the whole question of telegraphic and telephonic development is going to be obscured in a niggling sort of economy argument and campaign. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) talked about polished standards. I wonder what kind of business principles he is suggesting when we have to economise at the ex-
pense of real efficiency. Surely he is not going to suggest that those standards, because they are highly polished, represent extravagance and that we have to put up with something that is not the best but the next best, or perhaps the next best to that.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I was referring to very remote districts.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was referring to what we see near London. In any case, a good deal has been said of these niggling little economies. I do not think that is the atmosphere in which the question should be discussed. Big business—and this is an important national business—ought to be thought of and developed upon big business lines, and not as an appendage of the Treasury. If we are going to make a business success of a national business, we have to look upon it as a big business man would do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) said the commercial profits of the telegraphs and telephones really ought not to be put back into the service, and that we as a nation ought to consider ourselves as a body of shareholders, entitled to enjoy the profits coming from these national services. That would be all very well if you ran them with the adequate development of capital and enterprise which is really demanded for them. If they are still going to be an appendage of the Treasury, you are not entitled to condemn them, and to condemn public enterprise, because one section of the telegraphs does not show a commercial profit.
Some time ago I asked the Undersecretary whether he thought the appropriation for advertising telephones was sufficient. I did not think his answer was satisfactory. I did not think the appropriation was sufficient for such a gigantic enterprise as it ought to be and could be, and one of such manifold advantage to industry, commerce and agriculture. In America there are 150 telephones per thousand of the population as compared with our 32. In America there is a capital expenditure of £400,000,000 on additional plant contemplated during the next five years. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look with pained
surprise at a proposal of that character. He does not conceive of any capital expenditure for national development at the expense of the Budget. Let us deal with the question from a business point of view, as they do in America, and we may refer to Sweden and Norway as evidence of the success of business enterprise applied to State development, and it is true, as the Postmaster-General has admitted in his speceh, that public enterprise is not always a failure even from the standard of commercial profit. The total capital expenditure on telephones in Great Britain during the last five years was only £44,000,000. If you want commercial profit to go into the public Exchequer you must proceed upon the lines of any big business enterprise and not begin business enterprise with economy campaigns. It is not business, and you cannot expect it to develop on those lines.
I congratulate the Postmaster-General on putting in front of the Committee quite clearly the absurdity of looking upon public enterprise solely from the standpoint of commercial profit. There are lots of public services that do not provide a profit. Westminster Bridge does not pay a profit, but it is a public service and it pays from the point of view of service. The Postmaster-General has pointed out that there is such a thing as development enterprise which cannot be determined as to its value from the standpoint of commercial profit, and one may make comparisons with other countries, not only with regard to telephones but also with regard to railways. What is the characteristic thing with regard to the State Railways of Australia. Private railways would wait for a town to be built and to be developed, the whole thing to be there before the railway was run out to serve it. The State railway, simply because it is regarded more as a service than as a question of commercial profit, drives the railway out in order to encourage the development of the towns. If you are looking at the interests of the nation and looking at the service from the standpoint of the national interest, it is desirable to take these things into consideration, and that is where a great deal is to be done, especially in remote agricultural districts, in the development of the telephone service, judging of the results
not only by the pounds, shillings and pence standard, but by bow far the improvement, the cheapening and the development of the service can help to increase trade and prosperity and be to the general advantage of the nation as a whole. I again congratulate the Postmaster-General because, on that point, he has put the Socialist case as well as anyone on this side of the Committee could have put it. We believe in competition for use rather than competition for profit, although we contend that it is simply not true that public enterprise does not pay, even commercially, taking a general average and comparing it with other standards of private enterprise. Even if it were true, there is another thing to be considered, and that is the ultimate value of the service rendered to the efficiency and advantage of the nation as a whole.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Before taking this discussion away up to the refreshing and fragrant zephyrs of the Western Isles, I should like to make one comment on the speech of my right hon. Friend who opened this Debate. His speech was long, but it was as interesting as it was long. I desire to make a few observations on the mail services to and from the Western Isles. If I speak plainly and with a certain amount of feeling, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am singling him out for any special attack. The Scottish Office and the Treasury are at least equally responsible with him in this matter, but if I address my remarks too directly to him, I hope he will realise that I can see the Chancellor and the Scottish Secretary resting on his broad and manly shoulders. His triple responsibility in the matter is made clear in the recent and abortive contract which was referred to a Select Committee of this House, but which is now no longer a subject for discussion. In the Treasury Minute attached to the contract these words are used:
My Lords have before them a contract dated the 2nd and 11th April, 1928, between the Postmaster-General and Messrs. D. MacBrayne, Ltd., for the maintenance of certain passenger and cargo sea services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland and for the conveyance of mails by certain of the vessels so employed. Save in respect of the conveyance of mails, the
Postmaster-General acts on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government as a whole.
That contract would have provided two new mail steamers for my constituents, but I am bound to say it was their opinion, and mine, which I expressed in my division where I was at the time the matter was discussed in this House, that in every other respect that contract was a miserable failure. In fact, my Lords of the Treasury themselves, unconsciously condemned it in the most definite and damaging terms. They used these words:
The mail services will remain unchanged in all essential particulars.
That was a very poor response to those Members of this House who have been striving for years to secure an improved mail and transport service in the Highlands—very poor indeed. There is an aspect of this problem which I am afraid has not been properly appreciated by the Postmaster-General. It is this. The mail contract which he makes governs and controls the whole island transport system.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON indicated dissent.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Oh, yes. I will repeat that. The mail contract which he makes governs and controls the whole island transport system. The subsidy which is given by the Government gives a monopoly, and there can be no competition against the subsidised service. The measure of the efficiency of the mail service becomes the standard of the whole system of island communications. For instance if the Postmaster-General refuses as until now he has refused to provide a daily mail service, there can be no daily steamer service. The mere fact that he is unwilling to give a daily mail service prevents the islanders from having a daily steamer service. His moral responsibility is therefore much greater in this matter than the mere delivery of mails, and we expect him to acknowledge and shoulder that responsibility. We expect him to do all that he can to keep up his own mail standard of efficiency, because by that alone can we have improved transport and communications in the islands. It is not too much to say that the contract is the key to the prosperity of the people who are living on the islands and the West
Coast of Scotland. I am bound to say that after the most careful, and after the fullest reflection, I have come to this conclusion, that nothing less than a daily service of mails to the Western Isles can bring complete commercial prosperity to the people who live on these islands. The right hon. Gentleman may reply, "Oh, but a better service would not pay." He may say: "A daily service certainly would not pay." With all respect, I am afraid that I must deny to him the right to make that statement or to take that view. No big business enterprise has ever made any lasting progress on a policy of doing only those things which bring an immediate and direct profit, and that is equally true of Governments and political parties.
I would ask him, if he does set up that defence, to take a longer and a wider view. I would ask him to go up to the Islands himself, and see the people who live there and the conditions under which they live. He would then find, if it is his duty to provide an efficient mail service and an effective postal system, that his administration has been a dismal and depressing failure. He may again respond by saying, "If I have failed, so have previous Governments, so have previous Administrations." I willingly admit that, but that is no answer to the charge of inefficiency and is certainly no solution of our problems. Let me give two examples of the utter inefficiency of the postal service and the ineffectiveness of the whole postal system in the Western Isles. I have here a letter which I recently received from a responsible member of the legal profession who lives in the island of Benbecula. This letter refers to a population of not less than 6,000 people. Here is what he says:
Dear Sir,—I beg respectfully to submit for your favourable consideration and attention the following facts, namely, (1) Letters are delivered in this island every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. (2) Letters are despatched every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday shortly after 11 o'clock in the forenoon.
He goes on to say that these letters are taken on these days to South Uist, the neighbouring island which is only about a mile away and to which anyone can cross on foot twice in 24 hours.
They are taken there the same day, and they remain lying in the Post Office
until 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the following day before being despatched to their respective destination. This rule causes considerable hardship to business people on this island—there are still a few left, and I shall be glad if you will place the matter before the Postmaster-General and endeavour to get him to issue an order to the postal authorities and put an end to this unreasonable and unnecessary delay.
That is an example, one out of many, which shows the inefficiency of the postal service in the Western Isles, and I must confess that it is difficult to reconcile this with an earnest endeavour to make an improvement on the part of the Postmaster-General. Let me give another example. Before the War, the mail steamer left Stornoway on six nights a week to cross the Minch and reach the mainland in time to catch the early morning train which left at six o'clock for Glasgow and the South. That early morning connection enabled the business people of Stornoway and Lewis to go to Glasgow, which is the commercial centre of those islands, to transact business, and to leave for home the same night. Contrast that state of affairs with the condition of to-day. The steamer still leaves Stornoway on six nights a week, but not in time to catch the early train. The steamer is delayed for hours giving the impression to the community that the Government stubbornly refuse to expedite the service, with this result, that the passengers and the mails are left on the mainland pier at Kyle stranded for hours, and they are not able to leave for the South until eleven o'clock, five hours after they would have left before the War. That is also an example of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the postal system. I should like to know—and here I want to speak quite plainly—what right the Postmaster-General has to inflict these hardships on these people? I say that he has no right. I say further, that if he will make an earnest attempt, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and approach the Treasury for enough money, to maintain a reasonably up-to-date service, he will have—and by this time he knows that he will have—the support of every Member of this House.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: May I join with other hon. Members in saying how much we appreciated the very interesting speech of the Postmaster-General.
I was particularly sorry that he could not finish his speech because of the shortness of time, as he said that he was going to refer to air mails, but was unable to do so. I want for a very few moments to make some remarks with regard to the possibility of an Atlantic air mail service and to raise one or two points in connection with air mails to other of the Dominions. When I was in the United States recently I was particularly struck by the fact that everybody in aviation circles said that the founder of commercial aviation in the United States was the Postmaster-General. That is very different from the position in this country. I, therefore, went into the question as to how it was that the Postmaster-General of the United States had had this great effect, and why it was that the American air mail service was developing at such a great rate. I found the reason quite clear. What the United States do is this. They make a definite contract with an aviation company upon the following lines. They advertise for companies to tender to take the mails between certain places at a definite price per pound and the Postmaster-General then guarantees to dispatch a certain weight every day, tying down the companies under contract as to both regularity and speed. Therefore, the aeroplane companies have a very definite idea as to the revenue they can earn and the obligations they have to perform. The Postmaster-General takes the risk as to whether there will be sufficient mails on that route to go by air or not. The result has been that in the first two or three years the Postmaster-General has lost, but after that time he has made a profit on those lines, whilst the aeroplane companies have been able to develop upon a definite programme.
I now come to the question of the Atlantic mail service, which I went into first with the Postmaster-General over here, and then with the Assistant Postmaster in the United States. In the United States, Congressman Kelly, of Pennsylvania, has introduced a Bill in Congress whereby the United States Government authorises the Postmaster-General to pay a rate not exceeding three dollars, or 12s. a pound for all mails conveyed between the United States and Europe by air. I understood from the conversations which I had over there
that their idea was to charter definitely some 35 tons per week if freight space upon aircraft flying between the United States and Europe was available. Thirty-five tons a week is the entire first-class mail that exists between the United States and Europe. When one speaks of first-class mail, one means letters and postcards and first-class materials only, and not printed matter. The British Postmaster-General said that he would pay 8s. a lb. or two dollars a lb., one dollar less than the United States. Instead of chartering space, he would issue a special stamp, say, a 6d. stamp or something of that kind, and those who desired the fastest service would buy that stamp, and letters so stamped would utilise that mail service. The great difference between the two systems is that, on the one hand, those who are endeavouring to put these air services on know definitely on the United States side the amount of revenue they can obtain if they secure the United States contract, whereas under the British system they have no idea as to how much revenue they are likely to obtain.
Another factor which was borne in upon me while I was in the United States was that I understood the idea of the United States Postmaster-General was to make no extra charge whatever for sending mails by air between the United States and Europe, the idea being that the increase in speed will be of so much value to the business interests as a whole that whatever extra cost it might be to the Postmaster-General would be more than compensated for to the country as a whole by increased trade. Why I raise this point now is that in the latter part of this year one ship in Germany and one ship in this country are likely to carry out these demonstration flights across the Atlantic, with the idea of raising money to found a regular and constant service between the United States and Europe. When I say the United States I include Canada, I ought to say, between North America and Europe. It is going to be of very great assistance to those who are endeavouring to raise finance for this purpose, to know definitely what they can depend upon from the various postal authorities. I do not think that any subsidy is required, but I do say that if the British Government and the Canadian Government are
prepared to pay 12s. per lb. for all mail matter crossing the Atlantic in 48 hours—and it must be worth while to the business interests of the two countries for that to happen—definite tenders should be published by the Government and called for by public competition, it seems to me that the first step must be taken by Governments on both sides of the Atlantic if they wish to encourage swift transport of mails.
I would, therefore, make this suggestion to the Postmaster-General, that he should get into touch with the Governments of India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada and ask them if they will come to some definite conclusion as to how they propose to handle this whole question of trans-oceanic air mails. I do not think there is any doubt in the mind of anybody that trans-oceanic air mails are bound to come. They are probably coming very much sooner than most people expect. If that Committee could be formed, and if it could lay down the definite policy which each Government will carry out, it would be of the greatest assistance to all those who are endeavouring to bring about these developments. It must necessarily bear on the question of the reduction of Empire mails from 1½d. to 1d. Under the present system there is a considerable surplus which could be used for financing faster traffic. We spend many hundreds of thousands a year, it may run into millions, in subsidising shipping companies and railways for carrying mails perhaps one or two days quicker than they would otherwise be carried. I see in the future the possibility of the Postmaster-General securing a very great saving by withdrawing these subsidies, because if there is a faster mail which can take all ordinary letters and postcards and other really important matter, and leave the printed master to go by a slower service, there will be no point in paying these large sums in subsidising shipping companies and railways to carry the whole of the mail two days quicker. I think the eventual result will be that the Postmaster-General will save very considerably on subsidies.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. and gallant Member asking for a subsidy? Is he begging for some assistance, in the same way that the Federation of British Industries come to beg?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: We are not begging for any assistance. All that I am suggesting is that as the trans-Oceanic air mail is coming, some organisation will have to be set up to deal with that matter, and it will be of great assistance to those who are trying to bring these things about that the Government should decide now upon the lines on which they are going to deal with that question, instead of waiting until a later date. Obviously, if the mail is going to be carried from here to India in a little over 48 hours, it would cost more to do that than it costs now, when it takes 17 days. It is a question whether you are going to adopt the normal postal system and charge the same amount for sending a letter across the street in London as you do in sending a letter from London to Australia, or not. The question which has to settled is whether these air mails are going to have a surcharge or whether the cost of paying for these air mails is going to come from the surplus earned in carrying the balance short distances. I do beg the Postmaster-General seriously to consider these matters, to discuss them with the Dominion Governments and to lay down some definite policy so as to give us guidance and let us know how we are to expect the air mail to be handled.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The whole Committee will have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been made by my hon. and gallant Friend, and will congratulate him on looking forward so wisely to a solution of this problem, which is bound to come up for solution in the near future. I hope that the Postmaster-General will have taken note of the very important remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend.
As this Debate is very shortly to come to a close, I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I wish to refer to a subject of great public interest which has not received much attention from the Committee this afternoon, namely, the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Postmaster-General hap touched upon the techncal side of the activities of that corporation. I leave that aspect of the matter in favour of an aspect which is far more important, namely, the general provision of programmes for the public. The Postmaster-General cannot have
failed to notice the growing volume of criticism which is being directed against the British Broadcasting Corporation. Not only in private conversation but in every newspaper the utmost indignation is manifested against the corporation. The right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly justified in hiding behind the corporation and refusing to interfere in its activities if its activities were beneficent and if it were taking full advantage of its great opportunities for influencing the life of this country; but the corporation is dismally failing. I prognosticated at the time it was instituted that it was bound to fail.
Any Corporation so constituted is, quite clearly, incapable of discharging the important function with which it is entrusted. If you simply make a collection of ex-politicians and ex-schoolmasters or any other prominent citizens who happen to have nothing to do and who are willing to render service in return for a salary; if you select people on that basis and put them in charge of a new invention, full of great possibilities, you are wrecking that invention at its very inception. What has not been realised is that broadcasting is, or ought to be, as much a profession as journalism, the Bar, medicine or any other profession. There is no broadcasting sense whatever displayed. The microphone is being used to-day simply as a medium for the propaganda of every other art in the country except its own art. The mere fact that a comedian can entertain the public on the stage by the use of facial gesture is considered to be sufficient justification for engaging him to annoy listeners night after night.
What would happen to any other profession that proceeded on that basis? What would happen to a profession which selected my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) simply because he was a great orator, to play the part of Hamlet? That is the whole principle on which this Corporation proceeds. Some gentleman, for instance, has made a special study of snails. He may not be able to articulate the English language, and yet he is called upon to give a course of lectures upon the subject of snails. That will go on until we get a Corporation which understands something about entertainment and something about psychology.
The Government have appointed a Corporation which is fitted to be the governing body of some public school. The great advantage of having an impressive body governing a public school is that it does not attempt to govern; but these people on the Broadcasting Corporation are paid. What are they doing for their money? They have simply got hold of plays by Shakespeare and they have taken the most commonplace people from all over the country and inflicted them upon the British public.
They must train broadcasters, just as the journalist is trained. The mere fact that a gentleman knows something about snails does not entitle him to write an article on snails in a London newspaper. Not only must he know something about snails, but he must know how to write. Similarly, the Broadcasting Corporation ought to rain broadcasters, people who are trained to place before the public in an individual way, individual to broadcasting, what they have to say. In so far as they do not confine themselves to giving us bits of music and introducing comedians to us, they give us stale news. The public is really having a very bad time with this Corporation, when it should be instructive and entertaining in a far more efficient way.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: How is the training to be given?

Mr. MARCH: In the Children's Hour.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am astonished that an hon. Member of the intelligence of the hon. Member for Cambridge should ask me such a question. How are doctors trained? How are journalists trained? They have fostered the professional sense. They have something to give to the public which no other profession can give. But the British Broadcasting Corporation has no professional sense. It assumes that because a man can act on the stage he can also talk to the people through the microphone. An entirely different art is required. There is another important point on which I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. He lifted the ban on political controversy. For some extraordinary reason a ban was placed on political controversy. The people were to hear about everything in the world except politics. That ban has been lifted. What has been the result?—a debate between the hon. Mem-
ber for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and Sir Ernest Benn. That is the only result of lifting the ban on political controversy. I say that it is dangerous to allow broadcasting on medicine, music, or insects, on every possible subject on which the public is interested, except politics; and it is particularly dangerous in view of the recent extension of the franchise.
We have now complete manhood suffrage. We do not call upon every citizen at the age of 21 to play the piano or understand something about snails, but we do call upon every citizen at the age of 21 to play some part in politics. They get no information, or at any rate less and less information, about politics from the newspapers. They cannot come into the Galleries of this House because they are too small, and, therefore, they have no opportunity of being associated with politics. The Home Secretary, when introducing the Bill extending the franchise to women, said that it was the completion of democracy. It was nothing of the kind. It was a restriction of democracy, beneficent and necessary though it was. Each time you enlarge the electorate, you make it more and more difficult for the individual of independent views to stand as a Parliamentary candidate. He is bound to depend on the caucus, and the caucus governs not only the constituencies but this House. Members simply act like vote registering machines.
What is the corrective for this? It is to associate them with government, to teach them something about the machinery of government, and acquaint them with what is happening in politics. That is the one thing we are afraid to do. How can anyone claim to be a democrat and at the same time say that the people should not have an opportunity of listening to the proceedings of the House of Commons? It is only by that process that you will ever get a real democracy in this country. In Greece and Rome, where democracy did exist, everybody could go into the market place and listen to the politicians talking. [An HON. MEMBER: "God help them!"] Here is an hon. Member who submits himself to the democracy and yet says, "God help them." God help them if they should know what he is doing here, or what he is not doing. We should get rid of people who do nothing if the
public knew what some of us did or did not do. Since the days of Greece and Rome you have never had a democracy. You have a representative system in this country. The microphone, for the first time, places democracy within the reach of a large community. It is a wonderful invention which has opened up great vistas full of possibilities, and the British Broadcasting Corporation has been too lame and halting and frightened to take advantage of its opportunities.

Mr. AMMON: I am somewhat tempted to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in the avenue he has opened up by his criticisms of the British Broadcasting Corporation, but time is too short for me to do so. I entirely agree with a great deal that he has said as to the type of programme which is given, particularly with regard to the news, which seems to be a repetition again and again at different times of the day of the same thing. One is also tempted to explore the possibilities of what might happen to hon. Members if the proceedings of this House were broadcasted on an afternoon like this, and, particularly, if the public had any idea of the attendance in the House on such an important occasion. I want to congratulate the Postmaster-General on the very able and businesslike statement he has presented, and to commiserate with him that his annual Report of the service which comes more closely into contact with the lives of the mass of the people should have been delivered on an occasion when there were so few hon. Members present to hear it. Nothing gives me greater pleasure or delight than to see the right hon. Gentleman trying to reassure himself as an individualist and then delivering an excellent panegyric on the good work of a State-owned enterprise.
After giving us the wonderful record of his stewardship and announcing the biggest surplus ever yet declared on the Post Office revenue he went on to tell us he was not enamoured of State enterprise. We accept his statement but I imagine his education has been improving at a tremendous rate recently, and nobody could have been more uneasy than the Assistant Postmaster-General as he listened to the account of the work done by the Post Office, by a State-owned enterprise, especially having regard to
the somewhat unhappy speech which brought him into notoriety some little time ago. I regret that the Postmaster-General did not give the House some report on the newer developments in the service, such as the cash on delivery system and the prospects with regard to the postal cheque system. Having regard to some criticisms which have been passed recently I think the House should know, with regard to these particular developments, that the Post Office trade union have played a most important part in bringing them forward. Twenty years ago in a pamphlet issued by the staff of the Poet Office trade unions, which was afterwards expanded into a publication issued by the Fabian Society, they outlined a scheme of further trade and business which included the cash on delivery system and the postal cheque system. The Associations in the Post Office looked further ahead than the heads of the Department.
When trade unions are criticised that their only concern is hours, and wages, it is well for the House to be reminded that they are also concerned about the development of the trade and business with which they are associated. Twenty years after these projects were adumbrated by the staff themselves we have the Department coming forward and having to admit that the cash on delivery system has been a success; and a success in spite of the administration, because the Government have not utilised all the opportunities which were open to them in order to bring this service to the notice of the public. If any other business concern had had charge of it they would have advertised it extensively, as the Government might have done with the great facilities at their disposal. But their own unwillingness to admit the success of a State-owned service has hampered this service in its development.
I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation, which I am sure the whole staff will endorse, of the right hon. Gentleman's protest against the attacks which have been made on the staff in the Press and elsewhere, uninformed attacks to which the staff have no opportunity of replying. I am sure the staff will appreciate very much the fact that they have at their head a chief with sufficient
courage and fair-mindedness to protest in this House against these attacks and say that if they are to be made they should be directed against himself. Although I can no longer speak as an official representative of that body I know that I voce their feelings when I say, "Thank you" to the right hon. Gentleman. The deficit in connection with the telegraph system has already been referred to. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) suggested that about half of that deficit, £500,000, was accounted for by concessions made to the Press;, and I thought the Noble Lord the Assistant Postmaster-General dissented to that statement. I have looked up the matter and I find that although my hon. Friend was not exactly correct he was yet within tolerable distance of accuracy, because according to an answer given by the Noble Lord himself in 1926 the figure works out at £416,000. Therefore, my hon. Friend was near enough to justify his case.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL. (Viscount Wolmer): Can you give me the date?

Mr. AMMON: I will have it looked up. Let me refer to the criticisms in the Report of the Hardman Lever Commission on the staff. They were criticisms made by a man identified with a firm that has gained considerably by cash losses on the telegraph system. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) went out of his way to identify himself with the attacks on the staff in the Hardman Lever Report.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I carefully said that criticisms of the staff should be fair and in proper proportion, and I asked whether the Postmaster-General had put into operation any of their recommendations.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. AMMON: The right hon. Member confirms what I have said. When he read the extract from the Hardman Lever Report he was associating himself with criticisms which were distinctly unfair. The Commission exceeded their terms of reference, and on behalf of the staff I say that it was an attack which was without any foundation or any knowledge of the circumstances. One word with regard to the suggestion made as to the development of the telephone system. The
telephone system has developed at a tremendous rate, and the City of London can compare with any other city in the world as far as telephone facilities are concerned. I am left quite cold when the comparison with the United States is made, because there can be no comparison between a country which is a continent, with immense tracts of territory, and this country. I still feel that a great deal more might be done by the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to create what one might call the telephone instinct. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgehill (Mr. Hayes) informs me that in Liverpool there is a firm employing 3,000 persons in the manufacture of telephone instruments, which has given notice of impending discharge to a number of its employés owing to diminishing business. I am informed that the full capacity of that firm would be 5,000 persons. With the large surplus which the Postmaster-General has got, it would be good business to employ that firm to the fullest extent on forward orders in order that we might extend the telephone system more rapidly than we do. Instead of that, we seem to be holding back and taking steps only as we are pushed here and there, instead of going forward all the time. If the Postmaster-General adopted my suggestion, he would be helping his own Department, helping the rapid growth of the system and giving employment in Liverpool which is bound to have repercussions elsewhere.
Perhaps the Noble Lord would give us some information with regard to the postal cheque system. Although we all welcome it as yet another step in Post Office development, at the same time it seems clear that the Post Office have again gone with halting steps. They have feared to go the whole journey. One detects in such reports as we have seen, that the influence of the joint stock banks has been at work. Why take, for comparison, Belgium, a small country with nothing like the experience Germany has had of the development of this great system? In Germany, as far as I remember the figures, the business has grown to something like £8,000,000,000 a year. That is a tremendous business well worth developing in a country like this. It will help trade and commerce to a
tremendous extent, and will draw into the Post Office a tremendous amount of money not now deposited by small depositors who would not think of going to joint stock banks. In that way the State would be helped by cheap money and trade would be facilitated, which is what we want to-day. I hope we will take this first step, and gradually begin to develop on wider lines.
I would emphasise again, in spite of the criticisms that have been made against our telegraph system, that, as the Postmaster-General has himself testified, the average speed of the telegraphs in this country will compare favourably with that of the telegraph system in any other country in the world. As to our telephone system—well, some of us who have used the telephone in America are not so convinced that they have much to tell this country in regard to that system. An hon. Member says America is far better. He will have to fight that out with the Assistant Postmaster of the United States, who has testified that America has nothing to teach this country with regard to telephones. I do not profess to the intimate knowledge which the hon. Member has, but I have been to America on several occasions, and my knowledge leads me to support the evidence of the Assistant Postmaster-General of the United States on this subject. The Postmaster-General is to be congratulated. I hope he will get to work on the service, and that it will be developed still further, and the public given more facilities.
The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Livingstone) asked for a daily letter service to the Western Isles, and that would enable them to run a daily steamer to those Islands. I am quite in sympathy with that, but I would point out the awkward difficulty which some of those hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, who are always praising private enterprise, get into when they try to ride two horses, as in this case. They would not dare to make such a suggestion to a private company. It is because it is a public enterprise, which recognises that it is there for service, not profit, that they make a suggestion which is bound to have the sympathy of all right thinking men and women. I would remind my hon. Friends who still have some leanings to private enterprise and against State en-
terprise that they land themselves into difficulties, and that they unconsciously pay tribute to the success of State enterprise such as we are now considering. With these comments, and again expressing my appreciation of the Postmaster-General for taking the fair-minded attitude he has done in regard to his staff, I conclude by hoping that another opportunity will be given us later on to discuss the work of his Department, and that he will have ample opportunity to finish the statement cut short some time ago.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I ask the Noble Lord, seeing that the telephone service is being so extended, why men are being put off now after 30 years of service, with only £45 gratuity?

Viscount WOLMER: With reference to the particular point with which the hon. Member has presented me before my speech, if he will bring a specific case to my notice I will carefully go into it. I cannot possibly deal with the case without notice and without details.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I put down a question at the beginning of this week, but unfortunately it was put off until next Tuesday. Whether it was to obviate this discussion or not I do not know.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not go into that matter now, and I think the Committee will agree with me, because, if my right hon. Friend found it difficult to cover the ground in an hour, it is obviously still more difficult for me to cover all the points, which were made in so many interesting speeches in different parts of the Committee, in 20 minutes. I will select just those points on which I think the Committee would like to have a little information from this bench. I should like to take, first of all, the British Broadcasting Corporation. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) asked whether we might expect an improvement in the service in the North of Scotland, an improvement in the strength of the service. I understand that the Corporation are contemplating a change of wave lengths in the Aberdeen station which might, possibly, to some extent, get over the difficulties which are now being encountered.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will that be with increased power?

Viscount WOLMER: No, that will be a change of wave length. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is interference from ships and from coast stations that is one of the causes of difficulty at the present moment. The Aberdeen wave length happens to be rather close to the ship band.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am talking about the district north of Inverness. I understood the hill had something to do with it.

Viscount WOLMER: That is another point; I will go into that. In regard to wave lengths, it is hoped, if it is possible, though I cannot promise it will be possible, to change the wave length. It is hoped that there might then be some improvement in that respect. In regard to the bigger question of how Scotland is to come into the regional scheme of the British Broadcasting Corporation, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that it is part of a plan of the Corporation to have one of their great high power regional stations at Glasgow. They will be able ultimately to give a greatly improved service to Scotland by means of that station. Therefore, I think that the people of Scotland can feel that their needs are not being overlooked and that there will ultimately be an improvement from the difficulties, which, it is admitted, do exist at the present time.
The right hon. Member for Norwich (Sir H. Young) raised a most interesting constitutional point into which I do not think I can go very fully this afternoon. He said that the Corporation was almost a constitutional danger, because it was not responsible to this House and there was no control over it. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) made an attack upon the programmes which are now being offered to the public. Personally. I should like to repudiate as strongly as possible the attack that was made by the hon. Member for Devonport upon the programmes of the Corporation. I do not believe that that represents the attitude of the country at all. In fact, I can tell the Committee that, when foreigners come to England, they speak in tones of the warmest admiration for our broadcast service,
which, I think, is admittedly the best ill the whole world. That surely is one answer to the right hon. Member for Norwich that, if the programmes of the Corporation do not commend themselves to the public, the Governors will hear a great deal about them. That is one answer.
I need hardly say that the Corporation has a most careful system of analysing the thousands of letters which they receive from listeners-in all over the country. The same means are open to them of gauging what public opinion is on their programmes as is open to a newspaper proprietor or to a board of a great public company of ascertaining whether the public appreciates the stuff that is being offered to them. Beyond that, and on the constitutional point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, I really think he was building himself a little mare's nest. Of course, constitutionally speaking, the Postmaster-General is ultimately responsible for the British Broadcasting Corporation. What my right hon. Friend has done is to say that it is his policy not to interfere with the programmes of the British Boadcasting Corporation, and I believe that in that policy he has the support of this House and the country. I do not think that we should gain anything by having the Post Office interfering with the programmes and technical management of the Corporation. That is a totally different thing from what the right hon. Member for Norwich suggested—that there is no constitutional control over the Corporation. That is not the case at all.
I must pass from that to the Hardman Lever Report on the Inland Telegraph Service. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty asked a number of questions as to what the Postmaster-General intended to do with the recommendations of that Report. He asked what was to be done in regard to the reduction of staff, the grading of duties and the rotation of duties. I can tell him that progress is being gradually made in all those directions, but he knows better than most people that where the staff are concerned all matters must be dealt with in the proper way so as to avoid hardship and the breaking of pledges or understandings or friendly relationship with those
with whom you work. The recommendations of the Hardman Lever Committee are already being carried out in those respects. My right hon. Friend has spoken of the changes that he had already inaugurated before the Committee reported.
In regard to some of the other recommendations of the Hardman Lever Committee, I ought to say at once that the Postmaster-General has decided not to increase the telegraphic rates to the public. That was a tentative recommendation of the Committee, but the Government have felt that that would not be a right step to take, at any rate at the present time. With regard to the increase of rates to the Press, that is a matter which is still under consideration. Of course, the Press would have to be consulted. We have received more than one deputation on the subject at the General Post Office, and there have been other representations. Therefore I cannot make an announcement on that particular point this afternoon. There is one other small recommendation which may interest the Committee, and that is the recommendation that the public should in future be absolved from the duty of licking stamps at telegraph offices. My right hon. Friend has decided that that should be carried out forthwith. I think, therefore, that the Committee will see that the Hardman Lever Report has not been pigeon-holed and that in so far as it has made useful suggestions—it has made useful suggestions, although hon. Members on both sides may not like everything that it says—they are not being lost sight of.
I ought to deal also with the question of air mails, as to which the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) asked a question. The Committee knows that the hon. and gallant Member is a great authority on that particular subject, and I can assure him that everything that he has said this afternoon will be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and by the Department. The Post Office is most anxious to encourage air mail traffic, and we have really made very great progress in that respect during the last few years. Last year over 100,000 lbs. of letters and parcels was despatched by air mail from this country to destinations abroad. That is really a very big figure when you
reflect what an exceedingly small load an aeroplane can take. It represents a growth of over 40 per cent. during the last three years. These air mails can be run from this country as far as Basra, Moscow, Constantinople, and practically speaking the whole of Europe is now covered by air mail service. This development has greatly increased the possible speed of letter transit. The service has already reached the very large dimensions that I have mentioned. We are all looking forward with the greatest interest to the airship developments that are promised for next autumn. I have not the slightest doubt that the Post Office will take the fullest advantage of any service that the progress of science can give. There will be no one in the State more pleased than the Post Office if the time of transit of letters between this country and India and the Dominions can be largely reduced.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) asked one or two questions in regard to cash on delivery and postal cheques. Cash on delivery has been a success ever since it was instituted. The hon. Member had to admit that it had been a success, but I admired his ingenuity in attacking the Government because it had not been a greater success. As the Committee know, that service has been run consistently at a small profit. Over 1,500,000 parcels are being carried by it annually. It has undoubtedly proved a great convenience in many parts of the country. It is not costing the country a penny and there has been no difficulty or friction in its working. It is really still too soon to say whether the further extension which the Postmaster-General has inaugurated, by linking up that system with the railway service and thus enabled agriculturists to send large and weighty parcels by cash on delivery—it is too soon to say what dimensions that service will attain. Personally I do not mind confessing that I have been a little bit disappointed by the response to that particular extension. The Postmaster-General gave the figures to the House two days ago. This matter is in the hands of the railway companies, who are advertising the service very widely throughout the country, and I hope that agriculturists generally will realise that it is of real value to them.

Mr. MARCH: It will take them a few years to think.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member also asked one or two questions about postal cheques. The Postmaster-General appointed a Committee to inquire into this matter and report. They presented their report a short time ago, and at the request of hon. Members opposite the Postmaster-General has laid the Report as a Command Paper, and it is now being printed. I cannot say anything more about it until its contents are made public, but I have no doubt that they will receive the careful consideration of the hon. Member. Then I must come to the impassioned and fiery attack that was made on the Post Office by the right hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty, backed up by several of his Scottish colleagues. What was their complaint in general against my right hon. Friend and against the Department? It boils down to this: That we do not have enough deliveries, that we do not have enough telephones, that we are not spending enough money in Scotland or in the country districts generally. It is a very difficult thing to deal with the Liberal party, because whenever you are discussing finance they always stand with——

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Noble Lord need not attack the Liberal party. Members of his own party, in all the Debates on the Post Office Vote, have said the same thing from every corner of the House.

Viscount WOLMER: I am taking the liberty of replying to the right hon. Gentleman who, I understand, still belongs to the Liberal party. Perhaps he does not; I do not know. I was merely saying that what the Liberals are doing on this occasion is what they have done on other occasions. First, they complain that the Government are spending too much money, and then they complain that we are not spending enough. The shorn answer to the right hon. Gentleman must be that these Scottish services are nearly all already run at a loss. We already spend a great deal more money on Scotland than we take out of Scotland To say that Scotland is not getting its fair share of the Post Office service is to say something that is not true.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I was dealing with country districts generally, with
Wales and with England also, where there are complaints arising just the same as mine. What we want is a revival of the pre-War service. The War has been over for 10 years and the service in the rural districts of England, Scotland and Wales is worse than it was in 1914.

Viscount WOLMER: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have still great progress to make in that direction and a great deal of leeway to make up, but it is not fair or right to represent the Postmaster-General as having done nothing to improve the service of the Department in the country districts. On the contrary my right hon. Friend has done a great deal. I will give to the Committee a few facts to show what progress has been made. Do not let anyone think that I am arguing that no further progress can be made. On the contrary, we want to make a great deal more progress. Since the Postmaster-General has been in Office over 700 rural telephone exchanges have been established and the number of rural telephone subscribers has increased from 80,000 to 123,000. Over 300 railway stations in the country have been provided with telephones. Rural call offices have increased from 5,400 to 7,600. The, policy of using motor vehicles, which my right hon. Friend has introduced, has improved the Postal Service in many parts of the country. The number of motor vehicles has been increased from 600 to 1,800. My right hon. Friend has almost trebled the number of motor vehicles carrying mails to remote parts of the country. The number of rural telephone exchanges in Scotland has been very nearly doubled since my right hon. Friend came into office.

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sure that it will be for the advantage of the House if we
come to some agreement as to the procedure to be followed in the discussion of this Bill and the three other Bills which are set down for consideration. I am entirely in the hands of the House, but, if I remember aright, these four Bills were treated as one on the Second Beading, and I believe the same procedure was adopted in the Select Committee. The Bills are pracically identical and the different Amendments which have been put down seem to apply to all. If the House agrees to take a general discussion on the first Bill, namely, the London, Midland and Scottish Bill, I think it would meet the general convenience.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: What you have said, Sir, is strictly in accord with the view of your predecessor. The same principle is involved and the same difference of opinion exists in regard to all the Bills, and there is no useful purpose to be served by having four Debates on the same principle. It will suit the convenience of the House, and of everyone concerned, if the procedure which you suggest can be followed.

Sir EVELYN CECIL: On behalf of the other railway companies, may I say that we are quite agreeable to that course being taken.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first of the New Clauses which I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Major McLean)—(Review of exceptional rates by Railway Rates Tribunal).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: On a point of Order, Sir. May I ask if, in making your selection, you have noticed the proposed New Clause—(For protection of light railways)—in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James), the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) and myself? The New Clause on which you now propose to call deals only with one portion of the qualified passenger traffic. The proposed New Clause which stands in the name of myself and the hon. Members whom I have just mentioned is a comprehensive one, including every type of passenger and goods traffic. If it be ruled out, no fewer than 15 municipalities, who have public money concerned in these light railways, will be penalised
and will not have an opportunity of placing their views before the House.

Mr. THOMAS: I would draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is on the Order Paper—I do not know whether you will accept it or not—a proposal which deals not with certain municipalities but with all municipalities, and I respectfully suggest that it gives the opportunity for a general discussion, rather than the proposed New Clause of the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden).

Mr. SPEAKER: I should be proceeding strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders if I were to select Amendments without giving any reason whatever for so doing, but I can assure the House that it has not been an easy task to make a selection from these New Clauses and Amendments. What I have endeavoured to do is to see that all points of view have an opportunity of being expressed on the different points arising from these Bills. I think the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) will find that in my selection there is an Amendment lower down covering all the points which he desires to raise.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Review of exceptional rates by Railway Hates Tribunal.)

If and whenever representations are made to the Minister of Transport by any body of persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, are properly representative of the interests of non-statutory road transport proprietors, that exceptional rates are being charged in respect of traffic conveyed in pursuance of the powers of this Act, including traffic conveyed under working agreements made under this Act, which are competitive with the rates charged by the said non-statutory road transport proprietors in such a manner as to be detrimental to the public interest, and which are inadequate having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which the rates are charged, the Minister of Transport shall (if satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out) refer the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal for review, and the said Tribunal may, after hearing all parties whose interests are affected, vary or cancel such rates or make such other order as may seem to them expedient and any order so made by the Tribunal shall be binding upon the company.—[Major McLean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major McLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is drafted to meet a position which some of us fear may arise, in which the railway companies would fix very low rates for certain classes of traffic with the object of driving the independent road transport undertakings off the road. This Clause would enable an application to be made to the Minister of Transport in such a case, and if the Minister was satisfied that exceptional rates were being fixed in that way he could refer the matter to the Railway Rates Tribunal. That body would then hear all the parties and make such order as they thought expedient. It seems to me that this is a fair safeguard for the public in general and for the outside transport undertakings in particular. Obviously it would be to the disadvantage of the community as a whole if the railway companies were to use these powers for the purpose of driving the independent undertakings off the road. I do not think they intend that, but I think this Clause would remove any fear of friction. People would be satisfied in knowing that they had the right to go to the Minister if necessary, and I hope the railway companies will accept the proposal.

Mr. LAMB: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I think I am the senior Member of this House who sat on the Joint Committee which considered these Bills. That Committee consisted of five Members from this House and five from another place, of different political views, and we sat on 37 days, from 11 o'clock to 4.30 on the average. We had practically all the Members of the Parliamentary Bar before us, speaking from different points of view and in different interests. Every possible argument was brought before us and every point was raised, net once but many times. We were absolutely saturated with the question and, from a more or less judicial point of view we decided the case and came to a conclusion which I may call a balanced judgment on the evidence. I venture to suggest that we came to that conclusion after having been appointed by the regular method and that in the limited time available for discussion here, the whole pros and cons of the matter cannot properly be placed before the House as they were placed before the
Committee. I personally do not mind if our decision is upset or reversed, but I would ask the House to remember that the whole decision should be taken as a balanced whole and that if you upset one part of it you upset the equilibrium of the whole.
Subject to that general observation, I would only point out in reference to the proposed New Clause that we are here dealing with a new machine—a new explosive engine—the motor vehicle, which is on the roads to-day. The Preamble having been established, the railway companies are now to be entitled to use this motor machine and this has upset the whole balance of the transport system as we have hitherto known it. If the New Clause be inserted in the Bill the railway users of the new motor vehicle will be placed on an entirely different footing from other motor users. This Clause deals with exceptional rates. I am not clear whether it is intended to apply to rates for goods traffic, or rates for passenger traffic, but if it refers to passenger traffic there is a provision in the Bill under which all fares have to be posted up in every vehicle that runs on the roads. If it refers to goods rates there are no exceptional rates because, hitherto, this traffic has practically been carried on by means of special bargains made with each individual and there are no standard charges of any sort or kind. This Clause therefore would put a burden on the railway user of motors not borne by any other user of motors and the Railway Rates Tribunal would have no means of arriving at a fair decision in any case.
The Committee listened for days and days to the suggestion that the railway companies, having been granted these powers, were likely to use them against other road users. This was the case made on behalf of the traders, including the Farmers Union—who, I gather, have suggested this proposed New Clause. It was suggested that the railway companies, although they were said to be in an impecunious position, were going to engage in this motor traffic at a dead loss with a view to driving the other people off the roads; and that, having done so, they were going to put up the rates and
make the public pay. The Committee came to the conclusion that they did not believe that the railway companies could do so, for the reason that a motor service is a very easy thing to start. But having regard to the fears expressed, it will be seen that in Clause 13 the Committee gave the widest protection that they could give in this respect. Under Clause 13, if representations are made that the railway companies are exercising these powers to the prejudice of the public the Minister of Transport can hold an inquiry and call whatever evidence is necessary. If, in his opinion, the case is made out, he reports it to Parliament and Parliament will deal with the question. The railway companies cannot get any other powers without an Act of Parliament. They are under Parliamentary control as no other body on the road is under control. Clause 13 gives the widest means of redressing any abuse of this power. It can he put in operation at the hands of the traders or of the public, and Parliament can remedy that evil in a very short time.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed at the speech which was made on behalf of those who support this Clause, because I find a great difficulty in understanding it. The speech was so short, no doubt wisely so, that it left me in complete ignorance as to what the real intention was. I find language, which to me is somewhat strange, in regard to the rates which are to be charged being detrimental to the public interest and which at the same time inadequate to meet the cost of providing the service. I find it difficult to understand how the public can suffer by rates which are less than the cost of providing the service. For my part, I would venture to emphasise what the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has said, that "exceptional rates" is not a phrase which can be defined. There is no such thing as a standard rate, and, therefore, exceptional rates in regard to goods traffic are not possible in the ordinary sense, and certainly cannot be defined. On the other hand, so far as the service of the railway company is concerned, it seems to me to be a pity, if they are to run an adequate service for the public, that they should be put in
a different position from the ordinary omnibus service. Accordingly, I suggest either that this proposal is entirely unnecessary or, if not, that it is not presented in terms which would effect any real service to the public.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Clause that I call is the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail)—(For protection of statutory transport services).

Mr. GRACE: On a point of Order. If the previous Clause is not accepted by you, Mr. Speaker, it withdraws from private omnibus companies the right of putting in their claims under Clause 4 and claiming their right to the protection as given by this new Clause.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall not call hon. Members to order if they discuss this Clause in rather a wider sense than the actual wording of it would suggest.

NEW CLAUSE.—(for protection of statutory transport services.)

(1) The Company shall not under the powers of this Act except with the consent of the Minister work or run road vehicles for the conveyance of passengers, or enter into any agreement for or in any way facilitate the working or running of any such road vehicles along the route of or in competition with any tramway or light railway or trolley-vehicle system constructed or operated under the powers conferred by any Act of Parliament or Order confirmed by or having the effect of an Act of Parliament passed before the passing of this Act, or with any service of transport which may have been, or may hereafter be, provided under statutory authority along the route of, and in substitution for, any such tramway or light railway or trolley-vehicle system.

(2) The Company shall give notice of any application by them for the consent of the Minister under this Section by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the district affected, and otherwise to such persons and in such other manner as the Minister shall direct, stating the manner in which and the time within which any persons affected by such application may object thereto, and if any objection shall be made by any such person the Minister may direct an inquiry to be held.

(3) The consent of the Minister shall not be given to any application by the Company under this Section if he is satisfied that an adequate and satisfactory service of carriages or vehicles is provided on the tramway or light railway or trolley-vehicle system, as the case may be, or that the
service of transport provided in substitution therefor as aforesaid is adequate and satisfactory.

(4) Nothing in this Section shall restrict the running of any such road vehicles by the Company along any such route if no passenger conveyed thereon is both taken up and set down on any one journey upon any such route.

(5) Any question at any time arising as to whether there is or would be any such competition shall be determined by the Minister and the Minister shall have power to make any such order to give effect to the provisions of this Section as he thinks fit.—[Sir J. Nall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In order that the House may appreciate exactly what is intended by this Clause, I would say, first of all, that it is rather difficult for anyone who, like myself, is supporting the Bill on general principles to move a Clause which it may be urged in some way restricts those general principles. I want the House, in considering the very important question of principle which arises on this new Clause, to have in mind what has happened in the Joint Committee. I venture to say that the Joint Committee, in its dealings with these Bills, has created more striking anomalies than have been created by any Private Bill Committee certainly in the last 10 years. In the first place, five Bills received a Second Reading and were sent to the Committee, but where is the fifth Bill to-night? The Metropolitan Company's Bill was torn up by the Joint Committee, in spite of the fact that it had received a Second Beading, and notwithstanding the fact that the other four Bilk give the other four companies power to run all over the Metropolitan Company's area outside the London zone. That is the first anomaly. The Committee then proceeded to give a special protection to the London Underground Combine by excluding from the London area the passenger activities of those four companies whose Bills are being considered row. The Committee have in fact given a very definite protection to the London Underground Combination. I de not object to that, as I think it is quits sound that it should do so, but I want the House to remember that fact, that of all the petitioners in regard to these Bills, the one who has got sub-
stantially what he wanted is the London Underground Combination, because the main line companies may not compete, for all substantial purposes, within the area of the London Underground Combination.

Sir R. HORNE: No. Only a very narrow area.

Sir J. NALL: The Committee gave that protection, as I say, quite properly, to services which are operated by companies. Why then should they cut out protection to the provincial towns? They have given this almost complete watertight protection to the London Underground system, which includes the London omnibuses which are allied with the Underground system. The Committee then proceeded to say, "We will not give protection to the provincial towns except in the very narrow case of those provincial services which are operated by the municipalities, and even then only within the limits of the particular municipality." That is anomaly number two. Then, in proceeding to apply their decision to the provincial towns, they said, "We will only protect the local municipal service so far as it is operated by the authority of that area within its own area." You have, therefore, got oases where a borough operating the lines of an adjacent authority has protection within its own borders, but there is no protection for the lines of the adjacent authority, although in other instances, where each authority operates separately, each separate authority is covered, so that in fact the whole area is covered. That is the third kind of anomaly which arises under this Committee's very carefully considered decision.
There is a further anomaly, because, having conceded the principle of protecting local services, the Committee then said that the company services are to have no protection at all—not even the statutory companies. Why, the whole basis of these Bills is that the railways are statutory companies, with large capital sums involved, raised and invested under the provisions of Acts of Parliament; and, therefore, they have some right to the consideration of this House for the protection of that capital. The tramway companies have exactly the same case. They too have raised sub-
stantial sums of capital under the cover of Acts of Parliament. They are under statutory control, they have onerous obligations, they have to maintain the pavement of the streets on which they operate and on which the railway companies' omnibus services will run and increase the maintenance charges; and yet this decision of the Joint Committee says that they ought not to have any protection at all. You have, therefore, got an extraordinary position in the country, and I will illustrate it by comparative cases. You get the tramways of Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool in part protected because they are municipal, but the tramways of Bristol not protected only because they are company tramways. You get the Ipswich system protected because it is municipal, and for the Norwich system no protection because it is run by a company.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Do I understand that this Clause will extend this protection to these enterprises not only in a municipal area, but wherever they have statutory powers now?

Sir J. NALL: This Clause applies to authorities operating tramways or trolley vehicles which are established under Statutes, whether they be municipal or company owned.

Colonel ASHLEY: Working outside the area?

Mr. THOMAS: Is the hon. Member seeking by this Clause to obtain the same protection for private undertakings as is already provided in the Bill for the municipalities? Is that the object?

Sir J. NALL: No, and I will explain the difference. Clause 4 of the Bill gives protection to the municipal services of trams and omnibuses within the municipal area. This new Clause would give protection to the trams and trolley vehicles only, irrespective of area, and irrespective of whether they are municipal or company owned. It extends the tramway companies, but it drops the omnibus cover from municipalities. You get the municipal services at Blackpool and Southport partly protected, but the services at Hastings and Scarborough are not protected because they are company owned. Could any decision be more crudely absurd than that? These com-
pany undertakings, in the main, are purchasable at some date by the local authority, some of them quite soon, some of them in years to come. Why should the municipality which now owns its undertaking scoop some municipality which hereafter acquires the undertaking? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport always deplores any distinction between municipal and private enterprise, and I do not know what he is going to say on this Clause, but I am sure he will realise that there is really no distinction between the merits of the statutory system because it happens to be owned by a municipality and those of a statutory system which is owned by a company.
8.0 p.m.
In both cases, the obligations are identical, and the statutory control is exercisable by the Minister. Therefore, this Clause proposes to cover those local systems of tramways, or the alternative of trolleys, and the few cases where the track has been taken up and omnibuses put on instead. It simply protects the undertaking which is operated under a statutory authority. Hon. Gentlemen may say that Clause 4 is the most that can be done, but I want to point out that that Clause, even for the municipalities whom it is proposed to cover, deals in a most erratic and unfair manner with them. Take the system of Manchester, with which city I am particularly concerned. The city system is protected. The very considerable area of Stretford, which comes to within very nearly a mile of Manchester Town Hall, and is worked as part of the Manchester system, is not covered, because it is used as part of the Manchester system. The Salford system, because it is separately operated, is covered. There is no justification for a perfectly absurd anomaly of that kind, and I say to my hon. Friend who was a member of the Joint Committee, that they really cannot have listened to this part of the case. [Interruption.] I might dilate at some length as to whether some parts of the case were listened to, but I will desist.
I would ask the House to consider the circumstances in which these Bills were brought in. The railways are large capital enterprises, established and very onerously restricted by Acts of Parliament. I have never been able to see why
they should not be accorded facilities for operating the business for which they exist, whether it be upon the roads or upon the railways which they built. That principle was accepted on the Second Reading of these Bills. If, however, as the Joint Committee has proposed, that facility were restricted by putting in particular provisions about other statutory undertakers, whose case is exactly similar, and whose claim for consideration is absolutely on all fours with that of the railway companies, I cannot see any justification for this House allowing these Bills to go forward with that most astounding anomaly of the London Underground combination being protected while the municipalities are only in part protected, and the provincial companies are not protected at all.
If we were to allow these Bills to proceed with such a glaring anomaly as that, the public at large would indeed despair of the justice of Private Bill legislation in this House. I hope that I have made the case clear as to what was intended. We are not asking for the long distance, free lance, under licence omnibus services to be covered. I have never supported the plea that these omnibus services, which are run by free lance undertakers, which are subject to the grant of a licence, should be given particular cover against the operation of the railway companies. Nor is it practicable to give the ordinary road hauliers particular protection against the operation of the railway companies. But where you have these statutory systems, which have to pay rates on their tracks, which have to maintain the streets over which other traffic runs, there is an overwhelming case for a reconsideration of the quite extraordinary provisions which the Committee have put into the Bill. I hope that, on these grounds, those who are interested in the municipal case will realise that it is more Important to get the municipal tramway system properly covered than to get the tram and the omnibus only partly covered, and that in so doing we can do justice all round to the statutory undertakers, so that they may continue the business which Parliament has specifically, and under special local Acts, entrusted to them.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Motion.
I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting this new Clause, and of showing how unfairly Clause 4 of the Bill will operate against certain boroughs. I have in my constituency a concrete example—a very unusual one, possibly—of how Clause 4 will operate to the disadvantage of the local ratepayers and corporation. The borough of Ayr has an old and long-established tram system extending on the one side into and right through the adjacent borough of Prestwich, and on the other side into the county of Ayr. If Clause 4 is allowed to stand as it is, it will mean that within the borough boundaries of Ayr protection will be afforded to the town council and its undertakings, whereas outside the borough boundary, that is, in the borough of Prestwich and in the county of Ayr, there will be no protection. That is an unfair and unjust system.
The tramways of Ayr carry approximately 15,000 passengers a day, and they have a service of about 15 cars. To carry that volume of traffic, if the tramways had to be scrapped, as unfortunately, will have to happen under Clause 4, 40 or 50 omnibuses of 20-seat capacity will be required. There is nothing in the Clause to show what size the omnibuses should be, or even whether they are to have trailers attached to them. In the borough of Ayr the streets are very narrow in parts, and the congestion is already very great. If the tramways have to be scrapped, and these 40 or 50 omnibuses of varying size are put on the streets, it will mean that the already great congestion will be intolerably increased, and will be a danger to the population. Ayr is a seaside town of considerable amenities, and numerous holiday-makers go from Glasgow to spend their Saturday afternoons there. The danger to these holiday-makers will be increased, and I submit that on no grounds of necessity, expediency or justification can this Clause be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that the hon. Member is not anticipating the Debate on Clause 4. We are dealing now with the suggested new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I was merely contemplating the unhappy position in which we would be placed if Clause 4 were allowed to pass, without advancing
a case for the substitution of the new Clause. I feel that the case of Ayr possibly represents the same position of many other boroughs in the country. I would like to assure the promoters of the Bill that I am most whole-heartedly a supporter of the Measure. I feel that the principle of the Bill will give increased employment and security of employment to thousands of railway employés, and a guarantee of future safety to thousands of small shareholders in railway companies, but neither of these sections of the community would be willing to get that security if it were to be at the expense of the small ratepayers. What it actually means is this. The new Clause will give protection not alone within the limits of borough boundaries, but also to the systems operating outside. It will prevent the expense of widening streets and bridges, and scrapping capital outlay on systems already laid down, and it will remove the possibility of placing an intolerable burden on ratepayers who are already overburdened.

Mr. THOMAS: It would be wise to remind the House of the situation when the Second Reading was given to these Bills. There will be general agreement that all sides of the opposition were heard on that occasion, and that with an unprecedented majority the House said that these Bills should go to a Committee for examination, where all the arguments could be presented in a judicial way. I want to submit that the House at least agreed upon one thing, and that was the unfairness of the existing system, which deprives railway companies from competing on an equitable basis with their competitors. I would put that as a generally agreed proposition so far as the House of Commons is concerned. The House said, in substance, that whatever may have been the position in the past, they believe that the railway companies should not be handicapped in the manner in which they are handicapped to-day. Whatever may have been the justification when the Second Reading was agreed to, I put it to any hon. Member who takes the responsibility of voting against these Bills, that an examination of the facts to-day shows, not only a case as strong, but a deplorable situation which has to be faced. Whatever may have been the value of the railways when the Second Reading of these Bills was carried, it is
no secret that they are worth at least £100,000,000 less to-day. This case has been examined by a Committee, and any hon. Member who is seeking to upset the decision of that Committee ought at least to show that some unfair position has been created.

Sir J. NALL: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that he agrees with the action of the Committee in throwing out the Metropolitan Railway Company's Bill?

Mr. THOMAS: There are a number of Amendments dealing with different aspects of the question. At the moment I am dealing with the more general position. I will express my view of how to deal with the London traffic problem on an Amendment which will be moved later. Here let me remind the hon. and gallant Member that I am sure he knew perfectly well, though it was not a convenient thing for him to state in the Debate, that the real reason for separating the London traffic problem from that of the rest of the country lies in the London Traffic Act. He knew that perfectly well; but I agree, if I had been arguing his case, it would not have suited me to mention it. I am not complaining. I am merely pointing out to the hon. and gallant Member that he made out an excellent ease. It did not suit him to add that bit; I am adding it.

Sir J. NALL rose——

Mr. THOMAS: No, I cannot give way.

Sir J. NALL: The right hon. Gentleman does not want the whole tale to be heard. Can the London Traffic Committee give powers to the main line companies to run in London? He knows perfectly well that they cannot.

Mr. THOMAS: In the presence of the Minister of Transport, I will content myself with saying that the difficulty of the Committee in dealing with and separating London was exclusively on account of the London Traffic Act. Of course it was; and the hon. and gallant Member knows it perfectly well, and is not going to drag me into that side issue. I come back to the general situation. Stripped of all the irrelevancies, his case for the new Clause boiled down in essence to this: "We want this House of Commons to deny to the rail-
way companies a right which other private concerns have obtained from Parliament." That is what is involved in this Amendment, and the hon. and gallant Member knows it perfectly well. He made the point, "Did you ever concede this principle to municipalities?" I want tie House to understand what is the Amendment before us. The Amendment asks the House to deny the railway companies, what is already conceded by Parliament to another private undertaking.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: But not to the municipalities.

Mr. THOMAS: I am trying to keep within the bounds of Order. The municipalities will come up on a separate Amendment. I repeat that that is what the House has to determine. If it is admitted that there is a case for one private concern, call it a railway company, to have a fair chance to compete, what right have you to make a concession to one and deny it to others? I do not think the Clause can be justified on the facts. The whole of the case was put before the Committee, and they considered it and came to their decision, and I ask the House to maintain the position.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the case of boroughs.

Mr. THOMAS: Because I did not want to be unkind and draw the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the fact that he had been speaking on the wrong Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Sir W. SUGDEN: On a point of Order. When I raised the point of Order on my new Clause, which was the first on the Paper, I was informed that I should be permitted to debate it upon the Clause of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail). Should I now be in order in moving an Amendment to his Clause?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Mr. James Hope): The new Clause of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) has just been rejected by the House.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I rose before you put the Question to the House. I appeal to you now, because I say, with very great deference to the Chair, that the new
Clause which is down in the name of another hon. Member and myself deals with a vital issue which goes to the root of the question with which all four Bills are concerned. I ask you, therefore, seeing that I have been refused an opportunity to debate my Clause, although I rose in my place, where and how I am to find an opportunity of placing these vital considerations before my colleagues?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member could have raised his point on the proposed new Clause which we have just disposed of. It is true that I saw the hon. Member rise from his seat, but I was under the impression that he did so in a rather half-hearted way, and he resumed it. Had he pressed me, I should have been bound to hear him. It may be that an opportunity will be found on some later Amendment for him to raise his point. The new Clause has been denied a Second Reading, and it is impossible for him to pursue the matter now.

Sir W. SUGDEN: As I understand your decision, my obedience to you in the Chair has penalised me of my right to address you.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not any question of obedience. If the hon. Member had asserted his right to speak, I should have been bound to hear him. I was under the impression that he was undecided whether he wished to speak or not, and when I put the Question the matter was decided.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, after ruling my Clause out of order, although I endeavoured to show him that it was vital and, to my mind, more essential to the ratepayers and to the citizens of this country than any other Amendment in the Paper——

HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not know precisely what the hon. Member proposed to argue, but, anyhow, the chance of arguing it on that proposed new Clause has passed. It may be that he can raise his point on some other Amendment, but I cannot say at present, because, for one thing, I am not sure what the point is. He cannot pursue the subject now.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision and use of road vehicles.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The first Amendment marked for selection by Mr. Speaker is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson).

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 20 and 21, and to insert instead thereof the words:
convey by any road vehicle any passenger who on any one journey is both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London.
The effect of this Amendment would be to allow the railway companies to enter the Administrative County of London for the purpose of undertaking long distance motor coach work, and in exchange for this concession they would undertake not to engage in the Metropolitan Police area or the City of London in the ordinary work of omnibus business. As the Bill stands they are prohibited from entering in any way for passenger conveyance the Administrative County of London. I venture to say that the proviso which has been inserted by the Joint Committee of the two Houses is open to certain criticism. In the first place the Administrative County of London is not a recognised traffic area at all, and the London County Council is not itself a traffic authority nor a highway authority; and so, by this new condition, you are introducing into the present very complexed problem of London traffic an entirely new authority in the management and organisation of that traffic.
I want to point out that in considering the continuous urban area of London—after all the traffic does not know the boundary of the administrative county—we have in the Metropolitan Police area not only the Cities of London and Westminster and Metropolitan Boroughs but we have such extremely important boroughs as East Ham, West Ham, Croydon, Ilford, Ealing, and Leyton and such densely populated urban districts as Willesden, Tottenham, Walthamstow and Barking. The problem of congestion in all these areas is becoming more and more acute, and I think it would be generally agreed
amongst those of my colleagues who are acquainted with the traffic problems of London that at the present moment there is very little reasonable opening for any new undertaking to embark upon the carriage of local passenger traffic in the area of Greater London. The problem facing those who have to advise the Minister of Transport is rather to reduce the present congestion which, if it continues, must result in local authorities having to embark upon more and more costly street widenings. Our problem to-day is to use to the best possible advantage the traffic facilities which are already available. The Metropolitan Police has since 1869 been the licensing authority for all public service vehicles in that area, and as a consequence they have by this time established considerable control. It is quite true that the City has its own police force but nevertheless it has been found necessary to place it within this Amendment.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) hinted, the whole question has been altered by the London Traffic Act of 1924 and the experience which we have gained under that Act. Before 1924 there was little attempt to restrict or control, and the chaos of traffic in London was then of such a character that the then Government took up the question, and I wish to pay a tribute to the Labour Government of that day for placing the Act of 1924 upon the Statute Book. The congestion of the traffic has increased so much since that time that we are experiencing an increased number of fatal and non-fatal street accidents, and an increasing burden is being placed on our local authorities to deal with that congestion. In the case of suburban services of the main line railways there has been a gradual falling off in the receipts, accompanied by a closing of their stations, and at the same time there has been a demand from various other areas asking for new railway facilities whether by tube, underground railways or the electrification of existing railways. The tramways, so necessary to the travelling public and under important statutory obligations, continue to be a serious financial burden to their owners.
The then Government passed the London Traffic Act of 1924 and by Sections 6 and 7 the present Minister of
Transport has made a series of instructions which laid down that upon certain streets in the Metropolitan Police area they should not have any more omnibus traffic. It may be of interest to tell the House what has been the result of those restrictions which from time to time have been made, and which Parliament has sanctioned. At the present time the total mileage of restricted streets is 563, and 96 relates to tramways only and 26 are not covered by tramways or omnibuses. The miles of restricted streets operated by omnibuses total 441. The total number of miles which are covered by omnibuses in the Metropolitan Police areas is 903. The point I want to make is that whether your streets are restricted or unrestricted it is important that they should be worked as one unit and one unit only, and a uniform policy should be adopted with regard as to all streets in the Metropolitan Police Districts.
Finally, there is one great factor in the London traffic of to-day which ought to induce the House to accept the Amendment which I have moved. Apart altogether from the propriety of making the Metropolitan Police district the area for exceptional control, I will point out that if you can avoid it you should not introduce anywhere a fresh factor in the way of London traffic. The London and Homes Traffic Advisory Committee in July, 1927, recommended a scheme for the establishment of a common management and a common fund to cover all the local passenger traffic in the London area. That is, of course, subject to public control, and the protection of the community in the level of fares in the matter of the adequacy of the services given and the question of future developments. This scheme has been submitted to the local authorities and to statutory undertakings both municipal and private in the London traffic area, and it has received an overwhelming amount of support. It has also received the official approval of organised labour engaged in transport.
The main line companies are asking to be included within that scheme for the protection of their suburban traffic, and if these Bills were to pass in their present form with this restricted area of the administrative County of London it will introduce a new and a very uncertain
factor into those negotiations and must delay the establishment of such a scheme. It is for that reason that I ask that there should be a continuance of the logical policy that I have suggested. I move this Amendment because I feel that it is fair and equitable to the railway companies themselves and it does continue that policy which, for the last four years, we have been pursuing and which, if carried out, must result in improved transport facilities for Greater London which will be of immense benefit to the community, to whom cheap and efficient travelling facilities are so vital.

Mr. B. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the object of the London Traffic Act was to eliminate the congestion in the London streets, and also to eliminate what one would call unholy competition within the streets of London for the carrying of passenger traffic. I want the House to see that, if the Bill as it is now before us be carried, the exclusion of any railway vehicle from operating in the administrative County of London must have an effect that the Committee never intended, because it is obvious to anyone who looks at the matter that, if we tell the railway companies that they may not operate at Finsbury Park, yet they may operate at the Manor House—the one being in Middlesex and the other in the London County Council area—chaos will result. The object is not to put the railway companies out of operation in London, but rather to say to them that, so far as long-distance traffic is concerned, they may use the whole of the Metropolitan Police area for depositing and collecting their passengers for the journey into or out of London, but they shall not compete with the transport undertakings already existing within London. That is the real object of the Amendment, and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Colonel ASHLEY: Speaking generally, I am in favour of the House supporting the broad decisions arrived at by the Joint Committee, who, as we have been told earlier in the Debate, sat for between 40 and 50 days considering this Bill; and, therefore, in venturing to advise the
House to agree to this Amendment, I would submit that it is not a departure from that general principle which I have laid down, but simply an amplification or elucidation of what, I take it, the Committee had in mind. As the House knows, under the London Traffic Act the Minister of the day has very extensive powers to deal with London traffic, and I have, with the advice of the Traffic Advisory Committee, during the last two or three years, not only prevented an increasing number of omnibuses from coming on to the streets and making traffic impossible, but have also reduced their numbers a little as and when opportunity has offered. It is my policy, subject of course to the over-riding convenience of the public, to reduce them still more. I imagine, therefore, that the Joint Committee took London as a special enclave, a special area with which they desired to deal definitely in their recommendations, and they thought that, by the Sub-section which now appears in the Bill, providing that the railway companies should not run any passenger services within the London County Council area, they were, so to speak, crossing the t's and dotting the i's of the London Traffic Act, and by so much were supporting the Minister of Transport of the day and the House of Commons at the same time.
The result of that, to speak quite frankly, would have been unfortunate and unfair—unfortunate for the general public and unfair to the railway companies—because it would have meant that not only would the railway companies be prohibited from running omnibuses in that area, which as a matter of fact they could not have done without the consent of myself, but they would have been prevented from carrying out what I submit, with all respect to the House, is a quite legitimate activity on their part, namely, offering to the public a road service from say, Southampton to some point in London. They would not have been able to offer that service, and, therefore, would have been deprived of one of the legitimate and necessary activities of a road haulage or transport undertaking, whether a railway company or otherwise. The Amendment which has been moved and seconded by my two hon. Friends, both of whom are members of the London Traffic Advisory Committee—very active
members, if they will allow me to say so—seems to meet both points of view, because it enlarges the area of prohibition for taking up and setting down from the county area, which has no relation to the London traffic area, and puts it definitely at about 15 miles, which is the extent of the Metropolitan Police district, inside which I have definite powers. It says, however, that, although the railway companies are not to take up and set down passengers and run omnibuses, they may, inside that area, start chars-a-banc to any outside town or village, or they may set down their passengers whom they bring by the same means into the Metropolis. The Amendment, therefore, seems to me to be an excellent one. I recommend it to the House, and I say again that I cannot see in it any departure from the principle that we should generally support the Joint Committee in their recommendations, because it is only elaborating their idea and putting it into a somewhat more practical form.

Mr. THOMAS: There is only one thing that I should like to say to the House in regard to this Amendment. I take the line of not moving against the recommendations of the Committee. As I understand it, the position of the railway companies and those of us who are supporting the Bill is that, whatever our views may be on the broad question we accept the findings of the Committee. That is our position in regard to this Amendment. I would like the House to observe this remarkable fact, that an assumption has arisen in people's minds that the railway companies are going to try to stop road transport and drive people on to the railways. Nothing could be more absurd and ridiculous, and, indeed, the railway companies themselves would be most foolish if they attempted it. If the people of this country want road transport, they must have it, and they are entitled to it, but they are entitled to have it under the maximum of advanage.
Look at the situation at this moment. I know a number of people to whom time makes no difference. If they are going from here to Bristol, or from here to Scarborough, whether they take two or three or four hours more or less over the journey is a detail. But there are other people who must get there in quick time. Trains meet their case, but, if the
railway companies are wise, they will cater for those other people, and they will do so in this way. They may reasonably run, and no one would object to the railway companies running, a service to Bristol partly by omnibus and partly by train, but, unless this Amendment be carried, that will be impossible. I am quite sure that the Committee did not intend that that should be so. Supposing that anyone going from here to Bristol wanted to go from London to Swindon by road and from Swindon to Bristol by train, that, under the Bill as it stands, would be impossible. This Amendment gives that facility, with the added advantage that it stops plying for hire within the London County area. That is important. I do not support it because I quarrel with the Committee. I rather put it on the ground that it is not inconsistent with what the Committee has done and it rather facilitates it.

Mr. FIELDEN: These Bills received a very large majority on the Second Reading. They were sent upstairs, where for some 30 days they received very careful consideration by the Committee which after hearing and considering most carefully all that could be said for and against the Measure, have found certain results which we now have in the amended Bill. The promoters are somewhat disappointed at the result. They had hoped the Committee would be more favourable to their views, but after the careful and very full hearing, they came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for them to oppose the findings of the Committee on the Report stage. It is now proposed that the findings of the Committee should be altered on this point. It is apparently a change which is very strongly desired by those who have had to deal with this very complicated question of the traffic in London. The proposed change is approved by the Minister of Transport, and we believe the members of the Committee are not at all averse to it. Under these circumstances the promoters do not propose to offer any objection.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: It was argued before the Committee that the London traffic area should be excluded because it was too congested. It was argued on the other hand that the London Road
Traffic Act gave complete power to deal with any traffic going through that London area. It was shown that all the restricted streets in London were in the administrative county area, and the Committee decided to exclude the area of the administrative county only. They never intended, as far as I know, that omnibuses should not come in from a distance and pass through that area. All the members of the Committee agree that this Amendment is an improvement on the Bill, and I take upon myself, though I have not seen members from the other place, to approve it on behalf of the Joint Committee.

Sir J. NALL: There is a question of public policy arising on this that ought to be mentioned before the Bill passes on. As it came back from the Committee, as I think wrongly, the main line companies could not run these services in Central London at all. My hon. Friend has quite properly moved this Amendment which, subject to restriction, enables the main line companies to bring their running services into London. To that extent the House is reversing the Committee's decision. My hon. Friend in moving the Amendment is, I think, meeting a very real need. I think some member of the Committee ought to give a better reason than we so far know of, in the first place, why the main line companies were excluded from the London areas at all and, secondly, why the Metropolitan Company was given no powers at all, even outside the London area. There is here a very important question of policy. The London Traffic Advisory Committee can give authority to undertakers to run provided those undertakers are qualified to run, but the main line companies will not be qualified to run. The Metropolitan will not be qualified to run, and no powers of the Traffic Advisory Committee can enable them to put on services if that Committee thinks those services ought to be provided. We have heard nothing as to why there is this curious fact in the Bill. The London Underground Combine is very largely protected, and properly protected, as the result of this restriction of main line powers within the London area. It is most curious that, coincident with that, the London Combine, which
is protected in its own home market, is given a free hand to run into the Metropolitan Company's outside territory whilst the Metropolitan Company may not run at all in the London area.
Why is it that the Joint Committee has given this extraordinary series of decisions and now acquiesces in this further decision in favour of the main line companies and in favour of the London Underground group, whilst one single undertaking, which has as much claim, indeed a stronger claim, than any other to these powers, has been shut out and its Bill torn up? We ought to hear from some Member of the Committee where that fifth Bill is which was given a Second Reading by this House. In my view the Committee's decision on the whole question of the whole of the five Bills is thoroughly unsound and unsatisfactory from a Parliamentary point of view. Hon. Members may think I am unduly talking about the Metropolitan Company. I have had no kind of communication from that company and I have not seen any of its officers or members or heard anything from it. I am raising this purely as a question of public policy, as I am entitled to do in this House. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is an astounding anomaly. It is the most sinister sequence of coincidences. This House ought to know why the London Underground Combination is to benefit as a result of certain provisions in these Acts while one of its principal competitors is entirely excluded from the field.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(For protection of transport services of local authority in own area.)

Mr. T. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 23 and 24.
I am encouraged to hope that this will be accepted without a division. I cannot believe the House will deny to provincial municipal authorities a protection which it has extended to transport interests in the Metropolitan area. I move the Amendment in order to protect local authorities within the whole of the area of their existing transport undertakings. The Bill does not do this. Clause 4 stipulates, it is true, that with-
out the consent of the local authority a railway company shall not enter into any agreement for the running of any service of road vehicles, except for the purpose of serving any area beyond such local area, so long as no passenger conveyed by such service of road vehicles is on any one journey both taken up and set down on a route in such local area. A "local area" in this Bill is defined in Clause 4, as the House will observe, as a county, city, borough, burgh or urban district. It is that definition that my Amendment seeks to leave out in order to give local authorities a further measure of protection, to which I think they are entitled and which the railway companies and the promoters of this Bill will find it very difficult indeed in equity to refuse. Under Clause 4 of the Bill—it was, I think, in Clause 6 of the Bill which was given a Second Reading—which we are now considering, the local authorities are protected against the exercise of the powers sought by the railway companies within their own local areas, that is, within the municipal, borough, city or district area.
While this Bill may have real meaning and real value for certain municipal and public purposes, it has really no meaning at all and no value as far as the question of transport services is concerned. Transport services and transport problems cannot be interpreted in terms of municipal area or mere geographical area. Transport services, especially passenger transport services, cannot afford to be interpreted by a mere geographical municipal boundary. A moment's reflection will, I think, convince any hon. Member of this House that this is so. In recent years there have been extensive developments in the matter of housing schemes around all our great industrial centres, around all our big towns and cities. Progressive authorities in these areas have made it their business to extend their tramway transport services to meet the needs of the people who dwell in those new areas. Municipal authorities have extended their services into adjoining areas, into areas controlled by district authorities, into neighbouring boroughs, less progressive than the borough in which the tramway service originated. Those extensions of publicly-owned tramway transport services have involved the authority owning them in
very serious financial commitment's, extending in some cases, I understand, to a period of 30 years ahead.
9.0 p.m.
While it can be argued that municipal authorities enjoy certain statutory privileges with regard to transport—they enjoyed privileges in the past—I think the House cannot avoid realising that those authorities to-day have, not merely privileges in the matter of transport within their own area, but that they have very serous and very definite financial and other obligations. It has been argued in the course of discussions on former Amendments that the Bills as now before the House have as their main justification the serious financial difficulties in which the railway companies now find themselves. I do not deny that these difficulties exist. The railway systems of the country are to-day undergoing a process of change, but I think that it is the business of the railway directors and the railway shareholders to face them. I do seriously argue that it is not quite justifiable that the railway companies should come here to-night in this connection and argue that they should be given statutory powers to save them from their present difficulties at the expense of local authorities who are working to-day under statutory obligations and under difficulties that are just as real as any of the difficulties that beset the railway companies. I wish the House to remember that those difficulties and dangers bat the local authorities foresee, if Clause 4 becomes operative, will, in the last resort, have to be borne by the ratepayers in our great industrial centres up and down the country.
In this matter, I think I have a right to expect the support of every Member of this House, at any rate, who sits on the Government Benches, for the interests of the ratepayers are seriously involved in this matter. I think I have the right especially to count on the support of the Minister of Transport. When these Bills were passing through this House on Second Beading, the House was encouraged to give them practically a unanimous Second Beading on the assurance of the Minister of Transport that they contained no menace at all to the interests of municipal transport undertakings. He said that hon. Members were rather disturbed at the idea that
if the Bills became law they would in some way hurt their municipal enterprises. What, he asked, had the municipalities to fear in this matter? The power to refuse licences remained. At the present time, in the case of 99 per cent. of our municipal tramways, the municipality had power to refuse licences for motor vehicles. This power of refusal could be used against the omnibuses run by a railway company, just as against omnibuses run by a private individual or a private company. Does the Minister of Transport to-night seriously argue that this Clause as it now stands will not seriously hurt municipal tramway and omnibus undertakings as they now exist?

Colonel ASHLEY: What it does do is to protect the position in these localities. The Joint Committee give them absolute power to decide upon this, whereas when the Bill came up for Second Beading it did not give them that power.

Mr. KENNEDY: The Bill as it now stands does give municipalities protection within their own area, but my argument is—and I would like the Minister of Transport to meet this—that the definition of a local area does not give the municipal authorities protection in regard to that vital part of their municipal tramway undertakings which takes the form of a necessary extension outside the geographical municipal boundary. I hardly think it can be argued that the Bill as it now stands does not financially menace municipal transport undertakings. That it does menace those undertakings is the deliberate and expressed opinion of the municipal authorities themselves. In moving this Amendment, I am glad to say that I do so on their behalf and with their approval. I am not to argue the case in detail, although I could do so if it were necessary. I will leave it to hon. Members to argue the case so far as their own municipal authorities are concerned., I state the general principle that in this matter municipal enterprise is seriously hurt by Clause 4, and that the protection afforded within the municipal area should extend to the whole field of the authorised undertakings now carried on by those municipalities. I am encouraged by another evidence of the sympathy of the Minister of Transport with municipal
authorities and his impartiality in this matter, to count on his support. A few nights ago, in this House, we were discussing the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill, and in that Bill there was a Clause, Clause 37, which reads as follows:
If and so long as the company"—
this was a private company—
provides a service of tramways or trolley vehicles along any specified route and such service adequately meets or together with any service of omnibuses operated by the company adequately meets the requirements of such route, it shall not be lawful for any other company or any local authority, body or person to run omnibuses along such route or along any other route in competition with such service or services of the company.
That was a private company promotion, and that Bill on Second Reading had the approval of the Minister of Transport. I am not stating this point merely for the purpose of argument. I want to paraphrase this Clause in the Notts and Derby Bill, and to ask the House to say whether or not in Clause 4 of the present Bill the same principle might not with advantage be applied. What would the Minister of Transport say to the suggestion that we should include in this Bill an Amendment on these lines, which would really express the spirit and intention of my Amendment and the Amendments which follow?
If and so long as any local authority provides a service of tramways along any specified route and such service adequately meets or together with any service of omnibuses operated by such local authority adequately meets the requirements of such route, it shall not be lawful for any company to run omnibuses along such route or along any other route in competition with such service or services of the local authority.
That kind of Clause would give to the local authorities exactly that measure of protection which this private company got, with the approval of this House, on the Second Reading of the Bill a few days ago. There is an overwhelming case for the contention of the local authorities that they are entitled to the protection which my Amendment seeks to give them. They have vast capital interests in these undertakings, and those interests are, in the last resort, the ratepayers' interests. Many of these undertakings are run to-day on a very narrow margin of profit,
I plead with the House to realise that in the matter of the carriage of passengers within the municipal areas and to adjoining boroughs we are dealing, not with the long distance traffic which the railways will always carry for us, but we are dealing with purely domestic passenger traffic, over which the local authorities should have complete control.
There are general considerations which should compel the House to adopt my Amendment. Nobody can deny the fact that there is dangerous congestion on all our public highways to-day and that congestion is, I believe, more dangerous in our big provincial towns and cities than it is even in the city of London. There is the further consideration that within a day of two this House will set up machinery for a joint traffic inquiry by a Commission. Is it wise to-day to go further than is absolutely necessary in giving the railway companies statutory powers out of which they will create goodwill and vested interests, which in a very little time this House and the ratepayers and taxpayers may have to take into account? On all these general grounds and on the ground that I hope will be pleaded on behalf of the individual towns and cities concerned, I ask the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that an Amendment which stands in my name—in page 2, line 28, leave out the words:
'each constituent authority being deemed (a) to be the local authority of its own area,' and insert instead thereof the words 'such joint board being deemed (a) to be the local authority of a local area consisting of the local areas of the constituent authorities of the Board.'
is not to be taken. That is the reason why I am seconding this Amendment. This Amendment is much wider than the Amendment that I was going to propose. There is another Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith) and other hon. Members on the same lines as the Amendment that I had intended to move. We gave the railway companies a Second Reading of their Bills too easily. We did not anticipate then that they were not only seeking powers but that they were going to take away powers that Parliament had
already given. That is what Clause 4 proposes to do. There are two local authorities in my constituency which have formed themselves into an omnibus board. Clause 4 now makes them one area instead of two. In 1925, the Bedwellty area sought powers from this House to run their own municipal service, but the Bill was rejected, presumably because the area was too small. In 1926 the adjoining area, came forward and promoted a Bill for exactly the same purpose. While that Bill was going through they found out, I suppose, that the area was too small and that they had to do something, with the result that they entered into negotiations with the Bedwellty Urban District Council, and they agreed to form a joint board, which was passed by this House in 1926. It is proposed in Clause 4 to make those areas one. One can hardly believe that it was intended to take away powers already given.
When these two authorities came together there were several small private companies operating in the area. They bought out four of them, paying £18,000, and they have already spent on the undertaking some £30,000. There are two through services, which pick up passengers in the area and put them down outside. If Clause 4 is left as it is at present it means that this area will be so much smaller, and the undertaking will then pick up passengers in one of these areas and put them down in another. I hope hon. Members will see the difficulty of these authorities. Already there is competition, but it will be much greater if the area is made smaller, as it will be under this Bill. In the Amendment which I have put down I did not ask that they should be protected outside, but inside the area. The promoters of the Bill issued a statement the other day which is3 not quite correct. They talk about the restrictions and safeguards which have been put in the Bill and say they have no right to provide a transport service whereby passengers may be taken up and sot down in any one area in competition with existing tramways. That is our trouble—in any one area—and they go an to say:
This affords protection to all existing transport services.
That is not true. That is why I am putting this point to the House to-night. The Bill does not protect existing ser-
vices. You are making these two areas a single service area, with the result that the competition will be greater and more money will be taken out of the areas than has been the case up to now. Municipal corporations are provided for, as they should be. You do not propose to confine the area to the original area of the corporation. Most of our big municipalities have taken in certain districts at various times, have widened their boundaries, but you do not propose to go back to the original area in their case. In the case of these two areas in South Wales you do. I can hardly believe that the promoters of the Bill intended it, but that is the result of Clause 4. We have many joint boards in South Wales. These two authorities are the constituent authorities with four or five other boards. There is the Rhymney Water Board and the Rhymney Sewage Board, the Abertillery Water Board, and various other authorities, and a Bill has just been introduced to widen the area. In this case you propose to narrow it down and take away powers which were given as late as 1926. I can hardly believe that that is intended; but that is the effect of Clause 4.

Sir WILLIAM EDGE: I would not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the fact that with other Members of this House I was a Member of the Select Committee which considered these Bills in the Committee stage. I understand that we are to be allowed a fairly broad discussion upon the general question and, therefore, I desire to put before the House some of the points which were considered by the Committee. I do not stand naturally for the railway companies, or against the municipalities, but I want to offer a few observations from the point of view of the Committee which might be of some service to hon. Members. I should like, in the first place, the House to realise the position of the Committee. We commenced our duties in the latter days of April. We sat on continuously throughout the months of May and June, and we concluded them in the early days of July. In that time we heard 49 Counsel, and listened to 24 long speeches, some of them exceding two days in length, and we heard 18,000 questions asked and answered in cross-examination and re-
examination. Let me try and bring the discussion to the points with which we were confronted in the Select Committee. I am sure no member of the Select Committee had the least conception of the great revolution which has taken place in the area of transport in all parts of the world since the invention and perfection of the internal combustion engine. These Bills are the efforts of the British railway companies to try and catch up their past mistakes, repair some of their damaged fabric and deal with the difficulties which have come overwhelmingly upon them in the last few years owing to the introduction of this new road transport.
Let me refer to the municipal position. I say, and I know that I am speaking with the consent of my colleagues on the Select Committee, that no part of the great case put before us received more serious consideration and gave us greater searchings of heart than the case of the municipal authorities. We had the advantage of listening to their witnesses, men high in the esteem of the municipal world, at great length day after day, examined and cross-examined. We found, of course, what was general knowledge before the Committee met, that municipalities bad entered into road undertakings. A few years ago the statutory tramway undertakings of this country were in exactly the same position with regard to the inroads of new road transport as the railways are today. They were chained absolutely to the tramways, exactly as the railway companies are chained to the rails. They secured powers for running and entering into the newer kind of transport, and it seems to me that some of the Amendments on the Order Paper really show that some municipal authorities, having gained their own salvation and protected their own undertakings, rather object to the railway companies having the same means of securing salvation for themselves.
Let me say this to my hon. Friends of the Labour party. I must not be accused of being nervous of municipal enterprise. I know and understand, and live in the atmosphere of a great industrial borough and I am accustomed to municipal undertakings. Indeed, I admit quite frankly that the provision of amenities for the people in our Indus-
trial towns is one of the duties which a municipality has to undertake. I think the Select Committee agreed with that. But the Committee, in view of the greater question and the difficulties arising between railway transport and road transport, in their wisdom and enlightenment, said that there must be some sort of a limit. I do not think the most fervent admirer of our wonderful system of municipal administration would, ill his calmer moments, say definitely that for the purposes of long-distance transport municipalities are in exactly the same category or on the same platform as railway companies.
Let me give one illustration from the many which came before us in the long weeks of the Select Committee. The leading witness for the municipalities was a very highly respected municipal servant, Sir William Hart, the Town Clerk of Sheffield. During the course of his evidence, it was mentioned that at the present time the Sheffield Corporation were running a series of omnibus services well outside their city. I am in no way attacking the Corporation of Sheffield, for I have no doubt they were running under perfectly legal rights, but the point which arises is this. There were some services six miles, eight miles, 10 miles and one 20 miles outside the Borough of Sheffield. It was done in conjunction with one of the other transport services. It was admitted in evidence by the witness that it was run in competition with the railway services, and that it was doing damage to the railway services. The leading counsel for the railway companies asked the witness, if it was fair or right for the Corporation of Sheffield to run long-distance transport, admittedly at the expense of the railway company, was it not right for the railway companies to have the same privileges? Then he turned round and asked the same question of the Committee. He asked: If it was fair and right for the Corporation of Sheffield to run long-distance transport by linking arrangements, was it not at least fair and just that the railway company should stand in the same category and on the same platform as the municipality of Sheffield?
I want to ask hon. Members in all parts of the House the same question, and, before they turn down the recommendations of the Select Committee, I
hope that they will think the question over, not once but twice. There was one question entirely within the ambit of this matter, which was constantly before us day by day and week by week. There was the question of the decreases and deficits of the railways. Since the passing of the 1921 Act the relations of the railway companies to the public are well known in this House, but not so acutely perceived outside. If the drain is to continue on the railway companies, the deficits will have to be made up, and I would say to some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who so rightly call the attention of this House to the sad conditions obtaining in the coalfields and to the iron and steel trade, that the burden of making up these deficits will inevitably fall on the shoulders of the coal industries and the heavy industries, because they cannot get away from the railways and use road transport.
With regard to the municipal Amendments, it was the very anxiety of the Committee in order to safeguard the ratepayers' interests absolutely within the precincts of their own districts that, after listening to evidence and to counsel, they gave absolute, clear and undiluted protection against all forms of competition inside those areas. If the spirit of these Amendments were carried into the Bill it would absolutely kill this Bill for assisting the railway companies. I do urge hon. Members in all parts of the House most earnestly in this case at any rate to back up the findings of the Select Committee which do give full protection to the ratepayers of this country within their own borders, and which, while realising that the problem is one of transport throughout the country, give the railway companies an opportunity under stringent conditions—but I hope not harassing and crippling conditions—of repairing the damage to their traffic, and of making them a better and more useful national asset.

Colonel ASHLEY: To me this Amendment raises two very important issues. Firstly, does the Bill, as it comes down to us from the Joint Committee, do any injustice to municipal enterprise; and, secondly, if the Amendment were passed, what would be the effect on the prospects of road transport by the railway companies? Take the first one. I, in my office, thinking quite clearly and
conscientiously, cannot condemn myself as being in any way unfavourable to municipal tramways and omnibus enterprises, because, with the present Regulations and laws, apart from the Railway Bills altogether, when a municipality refuses to grant licences to other undertakings to run a transport service within its area, it is my duty, after an inquiry, to the best of my ability to come to a decision as to whether that refusal has been justly given or, at any rate, fairly given. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the traffic facilities provided by the municipality and the congestion of the streets, and, in fact, trying to suit convenience and do what is right as far as the public is concerned, I have always endeavoured, when a municipality was giving an efficient and proper service, to do what I could to protect that existing service from enterprise—whether it was private or whatever it was—which seemed to me to be redundant on the roads.
Therefore, municipal enterprise in its own proper sphere—I lay stress on the words "proper sphere"—has up to now and is, I hope, receiving legitimate protection. But the Joint Committee, in the exercise of their discretion, after this point had occupied four days with counsel and evidence, came definitely to the conclusion that some more or absolute protection inside municipal areas should be given to the municipalities. Some of my hon. Friends on this side may in their hearts have thought the Joint Committee went too far. That is quite conceivable, but in the changed circumstances of transport, with the Royal Commission coming upon us, and not knowing what their recommendations are going to be, I, personally, gladly accept the recommendations of the Joint Committee that absolute protection inside the municipal area should be given to the municipal enterprise. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are warm supporters of municipal enterprise, would have welcomed this, and have said they had got a great step in advance and were satisfied with it, but not at all. Indeed, they say, not only inside the municipal area, where it is much more the business of the municipalities to run transport services, and where they may be said rightly to
have special interests to consider such as the congestion of the traffic, and many other local circumstances, but they now say that the whole of their municipal tramway, trolley vehicle and other enterprises shall be absolutely protected. Why should they be?

Mr. SUTTON: May I tell the Minister of one instance? For 26 years Manchester has been running trams to outside districts, and the ratepayers' money has been spent on those undertakings. In my opinion competition ought not to enter there at all. What applies to Manchester applies also to other places.

Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member is quite entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine. Manchester will continue to run trams to these outside districts. The hon. Member says that when a municipality goes outside its municipal area, it should be absolutely protected from any sort of competition, and with that contention I do not agree. When a municipality goes outside its area, in my opinion it loses its distinctive municipal character. Its undertaking is run for profit. The municipality is not necessarily obliged to carry on this municipal undertaking, but does so because it is a paying proposition and the profits go to the alleviation of rates. I do not quarrel with that, but I do quarrel with the contention that the municipality should be given absolute protection and that no private enterprise should be allowed to come in and compete with it. I think it is most unfairly loading the dice against private enterprise when a municipal undertaking goes outside its own proper sphere of action for its own municipal purposes and then claims absolute protection.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Would not that argument apply to a municipality running a service to its own housing scheme outside the municipal area?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the Minister deal with a question raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) relating to two local authorities which, because of their smallness, joined together? One runs from A to B and the other from B to C. Where is the protection for these? They do not want to go outside the area but only from A to C,
and they do not want this Bill to give power to the railways to pick up passengers in A and set them down in C, and on the return journey pick up passengers in C and put them down in A. All that we ask is that those two local authorities should be considered as one, and the Bill does not give that protection.

Colonel ASHLEY: It is difficult to deal with all the interruptions. The hon. and gallant Member will admit that they will have the same protection as now, namely, that there is an appeal to the Minister of Transport if there is any licence refused by the local authority. I have shown that I am most anxious to protect any municipal enterprise. I may not have convinced hon. Members—probably I have not—but I feel that, when a municipality goes outside its area, the enterprise is in a very different position from that inside the area. But let us be quite clear on this subject. If this Amendment were passed, it would largely defeat the whole object of the Bill. That is the really practical argument. Hon. Members know that there are large areas, not so much in the South as in the Midlands and North, where there are chains of these municipal undertakings, and it is no exaggeration to say that the railway companies would be entirely prevented from operating at all over stretches of country 40 or 60 miles long. Therefore, I put it that the House having, by a majority of 400 to 40, said that, subject to proper safeguards, the railway companies are to be allowed to use the roads, it would be absolutely stultifying itself if it now gave an absolutely opposite opinion and said that many thousands of square miles must be sterilised and put outside the operation of the companies.
Hon. Members must know that, if the Amendment were passed, it would mean killing the Bill. I am sure that the House does not wish to do that. I appeal to hon. Members opposite not to press the Amendment, and for this reason: It is not as if to-night we were deciding how transport is to run in this country, who are to be the licensing authorities for road transport or how rail and road and coastwise traffic is to be co-ordinated. I hope that before the end of the Session the Government will be able to announce the appointment of
a Royal Commission, which has been pressed upon us by hon. Members opposite, to investigate the whole matter. I put it to them that the Joint Committee, by giving this very considerable concession—a concession which hon. Members sitting or Government benches distrust—are going a long way to meet their wishes. I therefore ask hon. Members to wait a year or two before going any further—to wait and see what the Royal Commission will suggest, remembering that on that Royal Commission they will have in opportunity of voicing their own feelings by having members of their own political faith upon it. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Sir J. NALL: The Minister is objecting, I understand, to covering these long distance omnibus services. Does he object to covering the municipal tram services beyond their borders if the protection to omnibus services is dropped?

Colonel ASHLEY: I object to this complete protection being given to municipal enterprises outside municipal areas.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: I wish to support the Amendment because of the position in which the Bill will place the city of Glasgow. As far as tramways are concerned, outside the great metropolis of London, Glasgow is the most important tramway authority in this country. There are in that city 266 miles of tramway, and of this total 92 miles is outside the city. It is not that we have gone outside the city of our own will; we have been asked by the authorities in Paisley, Dumbarton and elsewhere to extend the system. In the case of Paisley, it was a bankrupt concern carried on by a private company inefficiently, and ultimately the Corporation of Paisley asked the municipal authority of Glasgow to take over the system. They were asked to extend the tramways to the borough of Georgetown. Soon afterwards they were asked to take over the Lanarkshire system for the very same reason, namely, because that concern under private enterprise was not able to meet its expenses. The Corporation made these extensions, as I have said, because the local authorities desired them to do so. Following on that, another local authority in another part of Dumbarton-
shire, asked the Corporation to build a new line of tramways towards a place the name of which is spelt Milngavie, but pronounced "Milgay." That extension cost £800,000. They had to buy up land from the adjoining proprietors so as to widen the road and make it possible to lay the tramways. Having done so, they were met with opposition by the railway company. A bridge intervened at a place called Hillfoot which interfered with the use of the tramway line, and from then until now that bridge has not been altered, although the Corporation of Glasgow were willing to bear the expense. In connection with that matter more than £2,000,000 has been tied up and on that tremendous amount of money more than £750,000 has been accruing in interest and sinking fund which has to be borne by the citizens.
We are asking for no extension of our privileges. It is to be remembered that when the tramway system first came into being—it was in 1872 as far as Glasgow is concerned—it was a new mode of carrying passengers, and being regarded as a better method, it became a monopoly. This House, in dealing with the extension and development of tramways, whether in the case of private companies or in the case of local authorities, always treated the trams as a monopoly. To-day Glasgow has spent over £7,000,000, in this respect, and over £3,000,000 of that sum has been spent in order to deal with these bankrupt and inefficient concerns at a time when the ratepayers and the people generally were clamouring for a properly equipped tramway service. They are now meeting with opposition instead of having facilities granted to them to carry on their traffic as it has been carried on in the past. The fact that from time to time demands have been made for the extension of this service is proof positive that no fault has been found with the manner in which the public have been served. I submit that it is unfair, now that this monopoly has been created, that the money which has been spent should be thrown to the winds.
We do not desire a complete monopoly. We only desire that we shall get the powers that the railway companies are seeking in some degree to get for themselves. We ask that where we are carry-
ing on a service efficiently and to the satisfaction of the various communities concerned, our system should not be turned into a complete loss to the City of Glasgow. It is also to be remembered that we have to maintain the roadway in all these places, and in the case of one line, which extends from Airdrie to Georgetown, a distance of over 23 miles, we are maintaining the track and paying rates on the track. The railway companies, if they come in, will have no rates of that kind to pay on the road, but the Glasgow Corporation, faced with their competition, will still have to bear that burden. The result may well be that Glasgow Corporation, finding it impossible to carry on the traffic may tear up its rails, and discontinue those services, and allow the competition of the railway companies and the others to have the effect of closing down the trams. But who will say that the people of the community are likely to be better served in that case? The railway company is not likely to carry passengers a distance of 23 miles on a 2d. fare. They cannot do it, but Glasgow is doing it to-day.
We only ask that the privileges which Glasgow has used not for the benefit of the Glasgow ratepayers but for the service of its own and the adjoining communities, shall be continued. The railway companies have many friends here. The municipalities have not so many; but the municipalities must be protected in their efforts to serve their communities. The Glasgow Corporation is developing housing. It is impossible within the confines of the city to find room for the 80,000 or 100,000 new houses required. Year by year with every housing scheme which is proposed, we have to go further and further beyond the confines of the city. If this Amendment is not accepted, the result will be to restrict our opportunity of supplying our own housing needs, and developing our city as it ought to be developed, in the interests of health and good government. By rejecting the Amendment, I submit that the House will do a, greater disservice to the community of Glasgow and the adjoining districts of Dumbartonshire, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire than they will do a service to the railway companies. There will not be in Scotland the position which the Minister of Transport indicated in regard to the North of England, namely, that adjoin-
ing authorities will link up systems and prevent the railway companies from getting that position that the House is asked to grant to them. I submit that, as far as Scotland is concerned, that appeal is not effective. All that we ask is that the rights of the municipalities should be conserved. I challenge contradiction when I say that we have not failed to serve the community well, and, that being so, I hope the House will agree to this very simple and wise Amendment.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart) has treated the case as though it were entirely a ratepayers' case. I submit that there is a much wider question, a very big question of public interest, involved. It is not mainly nor essentially a railway question. It is not a ratepayers' question. The same comment applies to the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy). He made a very powerful speech as though the question concerned the ratepayers alone. I am not connected with any railway company. I try to look at this question from the point of view of the public interest, and I find that, especially in the Midlands and North Midlands, the country is largely covered by municipal services, omnibuses as well as tramways, but chiefly omnibuses, outside the municipal areas. But the hon. Member who moved the Amendment talked as though it was a tramway question. It it much more than that, for the Amendment, if carried, would prevent a petition by a railway company against any motor omnibus service established by a municipality outside its own area.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox told us what an excellent tramway service has been established in the district that he represents, and he told us how cheap the service was. If it is as cheap as that, the railway companies cannot come in, unless they run a cheaper service, and I do not think he need have much fear; I do not think any railway could possibly compete with him. May I reassure him on a further point? If he will read Clause 5 of the Bill, he will find that no company can deny the use of a bridge to a competing road company over which that railway company runs its own service, and Clause 5, I think, completely meets the point he raised.

Mr. STEWART: If I gave the hon. and gallant Member that impression, I gave him an impression that I did not intend to convey. I did say that the Glasgow Corporation had, at the solicitation of the local authority in that area, made arrangements for tramway lines from Hillport to Milngavie, some two and a half miles, that there was a railway bridge that intervened, that that bridge required widening, that the railway company refused to widen it, and that they have held up, from then till now, that tramline, so that not a wheel has moved on it since the road was constructed, through the direct action of the railway company.

Mr. THOMAS: How will this Clause alter that point with regard to the railway bridge?

Mr. STEWART: The railway companies who are so solicitous for fair play were the very parties that, so far as the Corporation of Glasgow were concerned, were not inclined to give that fair play.

10.0 p.m.

Major HILLS: I want fair play between competing services. This Amendment would not exclude all competition against municipal services outside their own area, for it is perfectly open to any private undertaker who gets the necessary consent of the local authority to run a service of motor omnibuses competing with an municipal service outside its own area. The only people that you exclude from competition on these lines are the railway companies. Can that be in the public interest? This is a Clause that is at the very root of the Bill, and I would ask any hon. Member who thinks that we can pass this Amendment and still preserve the Bill to imagine a map of North of England if this Bill were passed, for if he does he will realise that a very large part of that area—and it is the most productive part from a traffic point of view—would be excluded from the operation of the railways. I believe that if this Amendment is passed, the Bill is dead.
Let me very respectfully appeal to hon. Members opposite who are interested, and quite rightly interested, in the serious position of our coal and iron trade. Do they want to throw back all that the railways are entitled to earn under the Act of 1921 on to the heavy
traffic that cannot go by road in any event? It is surely clear that what is happening now is that the traffic that goes by road and that used to go by rail is the traffic that pays better and the traffic on which the rate is high, and that the traffic that remains on the railway now is the heavy traffic, which earns only a small sum for bulk or weight. If you kill this Bill, think where you leave the heavy traffic, think where you leave the coal miner, think where you leave his wages. A very large part of the depression in the coal trade is due to the high rates that coal has to pay to get to our ports and be exported, and the only chance of reducing those rates and recovering our export trade in coal is by bringinog back to the railway companies some of the better paying traffic that they have lost.
I hope the House will not pass this Amendment. I was not on the Committee, and I do not speak for any railway. I speak merely as one who tries to think what is best in the public interest, and I do not think that any municipality ought to be able to hold up a big public interest. If it has gone outside its own area, it should be at its own risk. It is not its own business—that lies within its own area—but it has chosen to go outside, and if it goes outside, it must not expect to be sheltered, but must be prepared to meet the weather that it finds outside, and it must not expect Parliament to hold an umbrella over its head always. I believe that the Committee has come to a just and wise decision on this matter, and I think that when a municipality goes outside its own area, it should not be given a monopoly.

Mr. PALIN: I can only regret, and all those who have open minds on the subject will regret, that the Minister of Transport intervened before he had heard the case for the municipalities, and further that he should have displayed such a lamentable ignorance of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir W. Edge) presumed that the Bill provided no protection for municipalities outside their own bounds. As a matter of fact it does, and that is the unfairness of it. The Bradford City Council leases lines from Bingley and Shipley, and because the Councils of Bingley and Shipley own the lines, they
will have protection for their services outside their boundary, but on the other side of the city, where they have constructed lines under the Act of 1870, they will have no protection whatever. Therefore, when the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said that the members of the Joint Committee were saturated, he was perfectly correct. They were more than saturated; they were inebriated, and so doped by the verbosity of the 49 counsel who appeared before them, that they did not really understand the provisions and the recommendations that were placed before them. The municipalities desire no umbrella held over their heads. They are asking for exactly what the railway companies are asking, that is a fair deal. The municipalities have risked their capital, and if they are to be forced outside their boundaries, it has been for protective purposes, and no one can say that the municipalities have placed any obstacle in the way of the railway companies getting a fair amount of traffic.
The railway companies by the stupid and autocratic attitude which they have displayed towards the municipalities, have largely contributed to the position in which they find themselves. Their only chance is to come to an agreement with the municipalities and endeavour to find a way in which both can co-operate and protect the capital invested in their undertakings. It does not matter whether the capital has been invested by people as ratepayers or as ordinary individuals, it will be a bad thing for the country if that capital goes down. Hon. Members may urge that there is something sacred about the capital invested in railways, but that there is no need to worry about the capital invested in a municipal generating station, and that there is something sacred about the employment of men engaged on a railway, but that men are entitled to no protection if they are employed by a municipality. From whichever angle this question is approached, it is not going to be settled on the lines laid down by the Minister of Transport to-night. The railway interests may to-day feel that they are in a strong position, and that they are going to lay down the law, but when the people of this country realise the great injustice that has been done to
them, I venture to say that the railway companies will no longer be able to get that favourable consideration which they have received at the hands of this House hitherto. To a very large extent, the flattering majority which was obtained on Second Reading was obtained by false pretences. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and others gave an undertaking that the interests of the municipalities would be adequately protected. There seems to be a disposition to throw that principle to the winds, because, having felt the pulse of the House, they see that there is a possibility of getting the Bill through without such an undertaking. But retribution will meet them later on.
If the railway companies are to be put on to their feet, it will not be by Bills passed by this House, but because they honestly try to meet the needs of the public and by giving those services which the trade of the country desires. Many of those services which have become competing services with the railways to-day would never have come into being but for the stupidity of the railway companies. They refused deliberately to give travelling facilities; they refused to give facilities for the carrying of goods. I need not repeat what I said on Second Reading in this direction, for it is all known, and I cannot understand why gentlemen who go to Chambers of Commerce and voice these grievances, run away from all the opinions they have expressed when opportunities like this present themselves, and say that the railway companies must have all their own way and that every other interest is to be sacrificed in order to put them on their feet. I trust that this very reasonable measure of protection for the municipal services will be granted. I realise that the friends of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), who run the private tramway services, can at any time establish an omnibus service without the expense of coming to this House. Municipalities have to spend thousands of pounds by appearing by counsel before local legislation committees before they can run a single omnibus. But a private tramway can, when they find that their business is going down, get a licence and run a service of omnibuses. Out of the revenue of some of these
tramway systems, they have acquired an entirely new omnibus system, and they are row in a substantial and prosperous condition. I feel that the Royal Commission and the Traffic Act that was promised by the Minister of Transport are overdue, but I trust that, in the meantime, while co-ordination and order are being restored out of the chaos that exists in our internal communications, this reasonable measure of protection will be given to the municipalities.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I understand that my Amendment will not be called if this Amendment is defeated, and, as it is consequential to the Amendment now before the House, I should like to say something about it. My Amendment deals solely with the existing tramway services of the municipalities. Tramway services are permanent installations, and are quite different from the omnibus services. Tramways are laid down permanently and cannot be removed. They are fixed assets which, if the revenue from them goes, are of no value at all. As there is a substantial amount of money invested by large municipalities outside their areas in this particular direction, I feel that the railway companies are presuming when they wish to compete with public money in that direction. The number of men dependent for their livelihood on the success of the municipal tramways is 87,000, and £83,000,000 of public capital has been invested therein. If we destroy any part of these tramway systems, we affect the interest upon the whole of this money, and, as the tramway companies are carrying passengers for a profit of only one penny for every 21 persons carried, I fail to see how the railway companies can bring any improvement to bear upon that particular situation.
Under this Clause the railway companies obviously desire to take away a certain part of the revenue of those municipalities, and as the surplus at the present tine is so low I think that is absolutely unfair, unless the municipalities are to be compensated for the amount of revenue the railway companies take. We all desire to see our railway companies prosperous, but we do not desire to see the roads of our great cities congested by commercial vehicles if these
are not necessary. There has been no complaint at all from the general public of the working of the municipal tramways; they have done their job efficiently; and when it is realised that municipal tramways have carried three times the number of passengers which the railways have ever carried, I think the railway companies are very presumptuous in bringing forward a Clause of this sort. I hope, if the Minister of Transport is not in favour of excepting omnibuses, he will again consider the position of tramways, because I cannot reconcile the speech he has made to-night with the remarks he made on 3rd July, when he said in this House:
I do not see why it should be necessary to have an undue number of vehicles on the road. Wasteful competition, surely, I should think all hon. Members would desire to see eliminated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1928, col. 1266, Vol. 219.]
If this is not wasteful competition I do not know what is, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider the protection of municipal authorities where they have spent money which they cannot now realise upon. I beg to support the Motion.

Mr. THOMAS: My friends on the Front Bench here know that I had not intended to take part in a Debate on this Amendment. I arrived at that decision in loyalty, and intended to give effect to it, but a deliberate, clear challenge under three heads has been made to myself by one of my own hon. Friends. He said that during Second Reading I had made a promise, that the House of Commons was deceived, and that I and those supporting me were concerned only with railwaymen and not with municipal employés. I propose to deal with those three points. With regard to the false pretences. It is true that the railwaymen took a view on this Bill because they believed in was in their interest. They may be wrong, but they took that view, and the railwaymen to-day have not changed that view. The statement with regard to municipalities made by me on Second Reading—I am speaking now from recollection, but hon. Members who will follow me will be able to find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT—was this: It is quite clear in my mind that I said it
was for the Committee to protect municipalities and that the railway companies did not ask any more than was conceded to any other private undertaking, and if a municipality had the power to refuse licences they could refuse them under this Bill and they could refuse them under this Clause.

Mr. MACKINDER: But the Minister can give them.

Mr. THOMAS: I am not concerned with any interruptions.

Mr. MACKINDER: Tell all the story.

Mr. THOMAS: I am dealing with what I said on Second Reading, and I am answering a specific charge made against me, and if the hon. Member is going to speak he can quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT what I said. I repeat it. The statement I made then I make now, that the municipalities were the licensing authorities and had the power to deal with licensing within their own areas. I also made it quite clear that the existing power of the Minister was one with which I did not agree. I said that in my judgment the solution of the problem was a centralising authority, and I still believe it. That is my answer to the first charge. To the second charge, that railwaymen are more concerned with their own position than they are with that of the municipal employés, I say it is not true, and it ill becomes an ex-railwayman to make that charge against me. The railwaymen feel, rightly or wrongly, that their interest is involved, but they do not quarrel with the municipalities.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading, that so far as the municipalities are concerned we not only realise that they are fair competitors, but we go beyond that and say that they, like us, are handicapped by unfair competitors. Can any hon. Member challenge the statement that if you carry this Clause, any private omnibus company sweating their men without any restrictions, can compete in the very area you are frying now to protect. My hon. Friends behind me know just as well as I know, that that is the position. I will now take the third point. I repeat that so far as the protection of public bodies is concerned and so far as the treatment of
municipalities is concerned, I stand with any other Member in this House for the absolute protection of the rights of municipalities.

Mr. PALIN: The right hon. Gentleman is a constant temptation, but I would remind him that he has made three speeches to my one on this question.

Mr. THOMAS: I am only dealing with the points which my hon. Friend raised. I repeat here and now that if any Clause in this Bill would exclude any private company from competing with a

municipality I would support that Clause, but I am not going to exclude a railway company because it is a railway company from doing what any other private undertaking can do to-day. That is the position before the House.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 112.

Division No. 281.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goff, Sir Park
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Gower, Sir Robert
Preston, William


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsden, E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bees, Sir Beddoe


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Apsley, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George
Ropner, Major L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hanbury, C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Harland, A.
Salmon, Major I.


Astor, Viscountess
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandon, Lord


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hills, Major John Waller
Savery, S. S.


Bethel, A.
Hilton, Cecil
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Betterton, Henry B.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bevan, S. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Blundell, F. N.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hume, Sir G. H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Burman, J. B.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Campbell, E. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tinne, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Looker, Herbert William
Tryon, Bt. Hon. George Clement


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Lougher, Lewis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Christie, J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir victor


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cope, Major Sir William
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Drewe, C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ellis, R. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Forrest, W.
Oakley, T.



Fraser, Captain Ian
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John.
Pennefather, Sir John
Colonel Sir George Courthope and


Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George
Major Glyn.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tvdvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Livingstone, A. M.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dixey, A. C.
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dunnico, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Edge, Sir William
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


England, Colonel A.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Fenby, T. D.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wragg, Herbert


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Remer, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Riley, Ben
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley


Griffith, F. Kingsley

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of privilege, may I ask a question before you put the Amendment. When this discussion opened to-night you, Sir, intimated that it would be general, and I understood Members on these benches to accept that in full agreement. We have been denied the right of expressing things that really demand an answer. There is especially one local question affecting two places. I feel that it was very unfair and unjust to accept the Closure.

Mr. SPEAKER: It has been ruled over and over again that the question of Closure is an action of the House and is not one that can be allowed to be discussed or criticised.

Question put, accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 84.

Division No. 282.]
AYES.
[10.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. F. Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briant, Frank
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Apsley, Lord
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, David (Montgomery)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Caine, Gordon Hall
Drewe, C.


Astor, Viscountess
Campbell, E. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Edge, Sir William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cecil, Ht. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
England, Colonel A.


Bethel, A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Bevan, S. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Everard, W. Lindsay


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fielder., E. B.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Forrest, W.


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major Sir William
Fraser, Captain Ian


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Gates, Percy
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, A. N.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gower, Sir Robert
Macmillan, Captain H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville, W.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Smithers, Waldron


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hamilton, Sir George
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hanbury, C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thorn, Lt.-Col-J. G. (Dumbarton)


Harland, A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinne, J. A.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oakley, T.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hills, Major John Waller
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Owen, Major G.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wells, S. R.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Preston, William
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ramsden, E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hurd, Percy A.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Remer, J. R.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jephcott A. R.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Strettord)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Livingstone, A. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Looker, Herbert William
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wragg, Herbert


Lougher, Lewis
Sanderson, Sir Frank



Lowth, T.
Sandon, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Savery, S. S.
Major Glyn and Colonel Sir George Courthope.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley



Lumley, L. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Attlee, Clement Richard
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Batey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Hotherhithe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Kennedy, T.
Smith, H. B. Lees, (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph, M.
Smith, Rennic (Penistone)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Lamb, J. Q.
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Lunn, William
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, H.)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Murnin, H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhodda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance and ruling as to how Members on the back benches are to express their
opinions on the Railway Bills, when only one Member from the back benches had the opportunity of speaking before the Closure was put? May we have your
assistance in preserving the rights of the back-bench Members of the House of Commons, to enable them to express their opinion before the trick which has been worked can be operated again by the action of an hon. Member opposite?

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall always see that the various views of the House have the opportunity of being properly expressed.

Mr. MACKINDER: May I ask if it is the considered opinion of Mr. Speaker that the full opinion of the House has been expressed when only one back-bench Member of the official Opposition has been allowed to express his opinion on such an important Bill before the Closure is moved and accepted. Is it the considered opinion of the Chair that the views of the back-bench Members are sufficiently expressed by one Member?

Mr. SPEAKER: The same opinions have been expressed several times by different speakers.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: May I remind you, on the point of Order, that in moving the Amendment I deliberately refrained from spending time in dealing with the case for the Amendment as it affected specific localities. I deliberately did that in order to allow the local Parliamentary representatives of the various municipalities to state their specific case against Clause 4. Have you kept that in mind in determining that the discussion on Clause 4 shall cease in the manner in which it has ceased?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Closure Motion has been put and decided by the House. It is not a matter for discussion. All the questions which have been raised have been in my mind all the time while the discussion was going on.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that you refuse to accept a Motion that the Debate be now adjourned, in order that this matter can be further determined? Are hon. Members who represent constituencies which are affected not to be allowed to put the point of view of their constituents?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already discussed that question and the House has decided it. I do not accept the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate as I consider it to be an abuse of the Rules of the House.

Mr. MACKINDER: The Closure was——

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that hon. Members of this House could not express the point of view held by constituencies which own tramway systems, because the Debate was closured by an hon. and gallant Member who is a railway director?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot discuss the question of the Closure. Over and over again it has been ruled that the question of the Closure cannot be discussed.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was going to ask you whether that was not a situation in which you would accept a Motion to Report Progress, instead of a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: A Motion to Report Progress only applies when the House is in Committee.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words: "'each constituent authority being deemed (a) to be the local authority of its own area,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'such joint board being deemed (a) to be the local authority of a local area consisting of the local areas of the constituent authorities of the Board.'"
This is a much narrower point than the one we have been discussing, but I hope hon. Members will be able to raise local matters upon it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order. We have your ruling. In the opinion of many Members of this House, the last question was not adequately discussed——

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members cannot continue to argue the question of the Closure. It has been decided over and over again that it cannot be discussed.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The particular matter of the Bedwellty Union was fully discussed before the Select Committee. I am not prepared to say that I carry in
my mind all the details, but I recollect the fact that there was an amalgamation in two local areas to take people over the Welsh mountains from one valley to another. The essential point, however, which came out in the course of discussion was that the railway company in the neighbourhood were by far the largest ratepayers in the area and were really paying a large part of the money which found the service which was competing with them. The Committee, therefore, decided that there was nothing special in the Bedwellty case, and it was dealt with just the same as other local areas where there are two local authorities running a joint service by arrangement with one another. Each union is treated as a separate union, running a separate service in its own area, and whatever hardship the local people of Bedwellty may feel, they are, in fact treated in just the same way as all other joint areas are, where the adjacent area has a joint service. No difference is made and the Committee, as far as I am aware, could find no circumstances affecting Bedwellty.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have listened with interest to the reply of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and I assure him that, while I quite understand he was doing his best to recall the decision given by the Committee, there are some points which. I think, it advisable to put before the House before it comes to a final decision. The whole point with regard to this particular Amendment lies in the fact that the contour of the district is one which makes it imperative that the two adjacent constituent authorities should be able to provide transport facilities through the medium of the present Joint Board than through their own independent concern. Everybody acquainted with South Wales conditions will know that just now many of these areas are hard hit financially, and because of that fact these local authorities have found it very difficult to find ways and means to secure the powers which they already possess by Act of Parliament. Therefore, they would feel it a particularly severe hardship if this Amendment which they seek to move here, were rejected by the House, and the expenditure which they have already undertaken should thereby be made very largely nugatory.
The hon. Gentleman opposite made a point that the largest ratepayers in the area are the local railway company. I believe that is largely true, and I am not concerned very much to deny it. It is hard to explain to those who do not know the particular area, but our first consideration even in discussing this Bill must be surely the convenience of the general public. Any person wanting to travel from the Sirhowy Valley in the Rhymney Valley, in which my hon. Friend's constituency lies, must, if he wants to travel by train, go a considerable distance, into the Rhymney Valley, change his train there and travel by train into the adjacent valley, possibly wait for a considerable time at the station there and then travel up the Rhymney Valley, whereas the Joint Board which provides the present system is able to avoid all this inconvenience to the travelling public They feel, therefore, that the powers which are now vested in them through the medium of this Joint Board are powers which ought not in any way to be interfered with by this Bill. Not only do I submit that the convenience of the travelling public is safeguarded by this Joint Board, but it is met in another way by reason of the fact that the travelling public are able to go that distance for half the cost of travelling by the trains referred to. I do beg the House to be good enough to consider as generously as they can the Amendment which we are hopeful in submitting to the Horse, because it is something which is of vital moment to these comparatively small local authorities. If the Clause be accepted, as I hope it will be, I assure the House that it will be a very considerable boon to the local authorities concerned, whereas if it be rejected it will mean a serious menace to the economic prosperity of the Joint Board. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: This is not a question affecting Bedwellty alone. It is a question which arises in many other parts of the country, but only a limited part. Remembering what the Minister said on the last Amendment—that we ought not to wreck this Bill—we can say that this Amendment will not wreck the Bill at all. It is very much more limited than the previous Amendment, and at the same time, if carried,
would be a great boon to certain local authorities. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said that when the municipalities had gone out into the rain they ought not to ask this House for an umbrella. The municipalities in this case have not gone into the rain. They have been put there by Act of Parliament. They have been made statutory authorities, and are asking to be protected in that position. In the case of Middlesbrough and Eston they are a joint authority for the purposes of traffic—the Teesside Railless Traction Board.
It seems ridiculous that this Bill can create the situation that the railway company can pick up in Middlesbrough and set down in Middlesbrough, or in Eston and set down in Eston, but that the existing authority has no right to go right through from Middlesbrough to Eston. That is what we seek to avoid by this Amendment. These authorities have been formally constituted under the law as the proper unit for traffic, and they have a claim now to be kept in that position. To give them that privilege would not be doing what the previous Amendment would have done—open up an endless chain of municipal enterprises in which the railways would be prevented from competing. It is quite a small point but a very important point for places like Bedwellty and larger places like Middlesbrough and Eston. The delicate balance which the Joint Committee sought to establish is not going to be upset by the Amendment, but will be slightly adjusted in places where it is now not quite just.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to have the attention of the Minister in order that I might put a question to him. I wish to know whether those who considered this matter took into consideration certain existing factors. The municipality of Airdrie had direct from this House power to run trams. The same was the case with Coatbridge. Those powers, through the municipality, were given as a lease to a company, and that company became bankrupt. The Glasgow municipality took over, under lease, the powers that had been given directly by this House to Coatbridge and Airdrie. Did the Members of the Joint Committee con-
sider what answer they could give to the question whether that meant a combination of powers given to municipalities through this House, and that the Glasgow municipality in carrying out this undertaking was outside the Bill? Did they say that because the Glasgow area joins on to the area of Coatbridge and Airdrie, the powers given by this House are to be denied to Glasgow because of what was done under the last Amendment? The City of Glasgow have no powers to run omnibuses outside their specified area. It was hinted that such powers existed and I was prevented from exercising my right as a private Member, when I wished to put in a correction of that statement. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman who prevented me, will remember what he did, because I shall not forget it. Every time a railway privilege is sought from this House, it will be found that any director who closures me will have to fight me. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may smile. This will change the complexion of the Membership of the House at the next Election.

Mr. J. BAKER: May I ask a question which may save the time of the House? Would the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) apply to Wolverhampton? With the consent of the adjoining urban districts, that authority has bought out the trams owned by a private company, and, with the consent of this House, it has undertaken to re-make the roads, and to run a trolley omnibus service over those roads. Will Wolverhampton be a joint Board wtihin the meaning of this provision?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid I cannot answer the question, and I think the hon. Member himself will admit that it would be difficult to answer it offhand. Although I have no right to speak or to make any offer, may I appeal to my hon. Friends in charge of the Bill to accept this Amendment. It seems to me not unreasonable, provided always that it is understood that it only applies to existing undertakings and not to future undertakings.

Mr. BAKER: If the House is prepared to accept the suggestion of the Minister, may I appeal for the inclusion of Wolverhampton in that suggestion? The
Minister cannot give a clear definite answer as to whether they are included or not. The district is being so badly served by private enterprise that the municipality has had to take over the trams. They have been running trams since 1900 and omnibuses since 1905. They have got the rights, with the consent of the adjoining local authorities—the urban district of Sedgley, the county borough of Dudley, and the urban district of Bilston. They have powers to run trolley omnibuses to Wednesbury, by the sanction of this House. Does that constitute them a local board for those areas? They are also running omnibuses, trams and trolley omnibuses for many miles outside their area. The Minister in a previous speech ruled out that case, but now he is inclined to agree that where municipalities are joined together to run joint services, and where other authorities have handed over their rights to those municipalities, this Amendment should be accepted. I cannot see any difference between that case, and the case which the Minister refused to consider.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, at the end, to add the words
(5) Where a local area will be altered by virtue of an Act passed in the present Session the alteration shall for the purposes of this Section be deemed to have been made before the passing of this Act.
If this Bill receives the Royal Assent before the Bill which is before Parliament extending the boundaries of Morecambe, Morecambe will only be protected from competition within its present small area, whereas it is obviously fair that it should receive protection for the larger area to which it is being extended. All that this Amendment will do will be to safeguard Morecambe, so that on whatever date it officially receives its extension it will receive protection against competition throughout the whole area.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Fares, rates, and charges.)

Mr. ROY WILSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out the word "regular."
This Amendment is to secure that wherever a service is provided, a record of the rates and charges shall be available to the public.

Mr. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. FIELDEN: I am sorry the promoters cannot accept this Amendment. These conditions would make it extremely difficult and would put the railway companies, which are using the roads for the purpose of transport, in a different position from those who are at present using the roads for the same purpose. We consider that it would be unfair competition, and therefore the promoters cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'regular' stand part of the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Fielden and Major Glyn were nominated Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Major McLEAN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, after the word "Company," to insert the words
or any representative body of traders or any interested party.
The Clause enables any local authority interested in passenger fares, who consider any such fares to be unreasonable, and any representative body of traders who consider the rates or charges to be unreasonable, to appeal to the Railway Bates Tribunal to reduce the fares or rates, and, if the Tribunal thinks that the complaint is reasonable, they may revise the fares or rates and fix a day when they shall come into force. If after the fares or rates have been revised circumstances arise which in the opinion of the company render them unreasonable, the company may apply to the Tribunal. The object of the Amendment is to give the local authorities or a representative body of traders exactly the same right of appealing to the Tribunal as the company has. If circumstances make the altered fares unreasonable it is just and right that the representative body of traders or the local authority should have the same opportunity of appealing to the Railway Rates Tribunal.

Mr. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment. It is a very small point, but very important. Where the companies themselves have a right of appeal it is only just and right that the other interested parties should have equal opportunities.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The view of the Committee was that this is quite unnecessary. Under Sub-section (3) they have the right of appeal already. In Sub-section (3) there is no right of appeal given to the railway companies, but if after the rates have been once altered the railway companies feel they ought to be modified again, then the public and the representative bodies have those rights under Sub-section (3).

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Working Agreements, etc.)

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that before any such agreement is ratified it shall be submitted for approval to the Railway Rates Tribunal and shall be published in such manner as the Tribunal shall prescribe and the Tribunal, after hearing all parties whom they consider entitled to be heard, may approve the agreement, or may approve it subject to such modifications as to the Tribunal may seem just.
This Amendment is a very important one. It demands that before a railway company can charge freights under this Bill they shall be forced to go before the Railway Rates Tribunal. In order that traders may know what the freights are going to be it is provided that they must be decided by the Railway Rates Tribunal, and then it will be clearly understood what are those rates.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will move his Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I am trying to put forward a very serious matter, and I ask the House to consider seriously this Amendment. When people quote prices we want to make sure that they are quoting prices which have been approved by the Railway Rates Tribunal.

Mr. LAMB: I beg to second the Amendment. There is a certain relationship between this and the next Amendment which proposes in page 7, line 27, to leave out the words "give notice" and to insert instead thereof the words "furnish a copy." The railway com-
panies are supposed to be given power to make agreements with other companies. This Amendment provides that these agreements shall be made public. If I may refer to the next Amendment, it provides that a copy shall be lodged with the Ministry of Transport, and, if we might discuss this next Amendment, I, personally, would not press the present one.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not select the next Amendment.

Mr. LAMB: Then I will speak on this one. If the railway companies are to be allowed to make agreements, it is very desirable that they should not be secret agreements, but that the public should be able to know what they are, and that the Minister on their behalf should have the opportunity of discussing whether the agreements are fair as between the companies and the general public. We were told, in the Second Reading Debate, that the only desire of the promoters was to be fair as between party and party, but, if we are going to allow these agreements to be made and to be kept secret, neither we nor the Minister on our behalf will have any opportunity of ascertaining whether they are just and fair as between party and party, and in these circumstances I hope the Minister will give us some reply on this Amendment.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I want to ask the Minister if he would be able to protect such working agreements as are at present in operation between the light railways and the heavier railways which latter are seeking these additional powers. I am not speaking from the financial point of view of a shareholder, but I have here conies of agreements which are in operation between certain light railways—the Shropshire and Monmouthshire, the Welsh Highland, and the North Devon and Cornwall—and the Great Western the London Midland and Scottish, and the Southern Railways. In these light railway companies public money to the amount of £250,000 is at resent invested, having been supplied by the county councils, urban district councils, and certain town councils——

Colonel ASHLEY: If my hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting him, I really do not see what this has to do with the Amendment which has been moved.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing an Amendment to an earlier Clause, that the Amendments as a whole should be discussed on that Clause and my Amendment thus is applicable to this Clause. What I want the Minister to do is to give us a definite assurance that he will not jeopardise public money belonging to the county councils, urban district councils and town councils who have invested this money in light railways, by permitting any agreements which he may be able to accede to or refuse, enabling the heavy railways to pick and choose their passenger or goods traffic as they please, and either crowd out or starve these light railways. I would ask the Minister, therefore, if he will give us this assurance of protection for public moneys, and not particularly for privately invested funds, in respect of these light railways.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I should like to bring to the notice of the House what the Committee did and what this Amendment really does. Under Clause 11 provision is made by which a railway company may make an agreement with any company or private person or local authority, or a working agreement for joint user of any system of omnibuses on the roads, and Sub-section (3) provides that notice of any such agreement is to be given to the Minister specifying the names of the parties and whether the agreement provides for the railway company having control over the service. The Minister, therefore, at any time can call upon the railway company, if there is anything wrong in the working of the system, and can see exactly what the agreement is. The Committee were satisfied, on the arguments put before them, that if such agreements were to come before the Railway Rates Tribunal for ratification, it would prevent any such agreements ever being made at all and as the Committee took the view that in many cases it might be desirable that the railway companies, instead of displacing local services should aid the persons who were running them and obtain mutual advantages they limited the particulars to be given as in the Bill. Every witness agreed that if these agreements had to be made public they would not be made. There are large numbers of these agreements in existence by and between the
present omnibus proprietors and road hauliers none of the terms of which can be known to the public or even to the Minister at all. This Clause is going a great deal further in respect of the railway companies than the present position with the various omnibus providers and it enables the Minister to arrive at knowledge of the terms of the agreement whenever he wants.

Mr. HARRIS: I have no doubt the Committee have put adequate safeguards in the Clause. Speaking as a London Member, I am naturally suspicious whether the Minister will be very wide awake to the necessity of preventing these agreements. We have had some very serious experiences in London of secret agreements. The traffic combine has really got round the provisions of the London Traffic Act by a number of agreements which have not been made public. The London General Omnibus Company has a working agreement with Tilling and Company.

Colonel ASHLEY: By a previous Amendment we have excluded all these omnibuses from the London Metropolitan area.

Mr. HARRIS: I quite appreciate that London has been protected under the Bill. But it is very necessary that there should be safeguards and that there should not be secret agreements. We have seen in London what happens when you have these arrangements between railway companies and other forms of transport. We have to defeat monopoly in London Except for the County Council tramways, the whole system has come under the control of the traffic trust, which is a combination of omnibuses, tramways and railways. We have to be very careful that under this Bill similar arrangements will not be come to all over the country. If they are done in public, there is no objection. On the other hand, if they are done privately, under some secret arrangement, they are open to great objection. We want to feel sure that the Minister is going to exercise his functions as protector of public interests. I think that he ought to make it clear that when these agreements are arranged he is going to see to it that the purposes of this Bill are not got round.

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: I understand that in consequence of this Amendment being discussed, a later Amendment put down in my name will not be called. It reads as follows:—

In page 7, line 32, at the end, to insert the words,
and shall at the same time furnish to the Minister a copy of any such agreement, and such agreement shall not come into force until the same shall have been sanctioned by the Minister.
A copy of any such agreement shall be open to public inspection, and the Minister shall not sanction any such agreement if objection in writing is taken thereto by any representative body of traders within twenty-one days from the date upon which a copy of any such agreement is made available for public inspection. In the event of any such objection being made, the Minister may direct a public inquiry to be held in accordance with section thirteen of this Act.

In my humble judgment, my Amendment is a better Amendment, because I would not have these agreements referred to the Railway Rates Tribunal. It is quite true that the Committee have tried to provide some safeguards, but I would suggest to the House that those safeguards are very illusory. Simply the heads of the agreements are to be reported to the Minister of Transport. I suggest that, having regard to the working agreements which may be arrived at—one does not desire to stop all these agreements—the public interests should be conserved by working agreements being prevented which are not in the interests of the public. As a matter of fact, we all know what has happened in connection with railway companies and canals, and we do not want any such forms of working agreements to be perpetrated in the future. I suggest that the better way of dealing with this matter would be for the whole of the agreement, not simply the parties to it and the heads of the agreement, to be reported to the Minister, for the public, who are interested, should have the right, if they so desire, of entering their protest. I would even go further and suggest that these agreements should be ratified by the House of Commons by being placed on the Table for a certain number of days. If no objection was taken to them, then they could become operative. I think that it is wrong for these hidden agreements to be entered into; the public in-
terests might be contravened in every line of an agreement which was being put forward.

Major HILLS: I want to recall to the House the exact meaning of this Amendment. Clause 11 is a Clause that is very much to the advantage of local authorities, for it enables combination to take place between the railways and local authorities. I believe that there is room for everybody. I believe that there is plenty of transport for everybody. I believe that it is possible for the railway companies to go on to the roads and that the local authorities will not find as much damage being done as they fear. Clause 11 is really very much to their advantage because it gives them the power to do what otherwise they cannot do—to make agreements with railway companies about road transport. What is to happen to these agreements when they have been made? My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) has suggested that they should go to the Railway Rates Tribunal. I submit to the House that of all bodies the Railway Rates Tribunal is the worst body to determine the terms of these agreements. It is a body which has to fix the rates to be charged by railways on goods. The Railway Rates Tribunal is very much overloaded with work, and you would never get these agreements dealt with expeditiously. It might take months, if not years, in which to get them through. The scheme of the Bill is much better. Under Sub-section (3) all these agreements have to be sent to the Minister. Clause 11 should be read with Clause 13, which provides that:
If the Minister is at any time of opinion that the interests of the public are prejudicially affected by the exercise of the powers of this Act
he can order an inquiry to be held, and if the matter is not put right he can report to both Houses of Parliament. I admit that these agreements may not always be in the public interest, and that there must be some control, but I hope the House will accept the scheme of the Bill under which the responsible Minister is given the duty of looking at these agreements, and if he finds anything that he does not like in the agreement he has general power under Clause 13 to call the attention of the company to it, and if they do not put it right he can cause an
inquiry to be held, and, in the ultimate resort, he can report to both Houses of Parliament.

Sir BASIL PETO: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) withdraws his Amendment, will the House have an opportunity of voting on the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. E. Alexander)?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member ask that the Amendment should be withdrawn?

Sir B. PETO: If the hon. Member for Macclesfield withdraws his Amendment, will the House have an opportunity of voting on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the House agrees to the withdrawal of the Amendment and it is understood that a Division is to be taken immediately on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leyton, we could take a Division on that Amendment; but it is for the House to determine whether the Amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. THOMAS: The question was deliberately raised by the hon. Member for Leyton, who said that he had an Amendment on the Paper. He specifically stated that the present Amendment was not quite so wide as his Amendment, which he understood was not to be moved.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman raise a point of Order?

Mr. THOMAS: My point is that the answer we got from the Chair was that the other Amendment was not to be called.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is in the hands of the House. Any hon. Member can prevent the present Amendment from being withdrawn. If it is negatived, then I shall take the matter as settled. Does the hon. Member for Macclesfield wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. REMER: I suggest that, if my Amendment were carried, it would still be open to the House to amend it further.

Mr. DIXEY: I hope my hon. Friend will stick to his Amendment until the Minister will give us an assurance that he will consent to some form being embodied in the Bill on the lines laid down in the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton. I understood that some protection was to be introduced to guard against any possible monopoly, and those of us who opposed the Bill on Second Beading did so because we thought there was a possible monopoly. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept some Amendment of this nature I shall go into the lobby in support of it.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am not the arbiter in these things. It is the House of Commons.

Mr. DIXEY: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on the Second Reading he stated definitely that the Government would secure proper safeguards. Is he satisfied that proper safeguards have been put in the Bill?

Colonel ASHLEY: On that point, broadly speaking, I am satisfied. I think Clause 13 gives to the Minister general powers which the House should regard as satisfactory. I understand that the Select Committee came to the conclusion that, instead of having a safeguard here, and a regulation in another place, it was far better to put in general powers or obligations on the Minister in a Clause so that if he considered anything was wrong he could order an inquiry; report it to the House and have the matter put right as soon as possible.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has told us that local authorities gist many advantages under this Clause because they are allowed to enter into certain agreements with the railway companies. Is it not the case that railway companies can enter into agreements with private companies and therefore unless the right hon. Gentleman acted instantly on receipt of any such agreement the railway company and the private company might come to an agreement which would destroy a municipal undertaking. Is that possible under this Clause?

Colonel ASHLEY: The Clause seems to me to be as secure as words can make it. It says "if the Minister at any time thinks". That means that he can act at once. In the course of a few weeks action can be taken and a report made to the House. Whoever was hurt by any such agreement would report the matter at once; it would become known through the press; and if it was against the public interest public opinion would be strong enough to put a stop to it.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS rose——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out that we are not in Committee. The hon. Member can only speak again by leave of the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not within the rules of the House even on the Report stage to follow up a question which is of such vital importance to local authorities all over the country?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Only by leave of the House. Perhaps I ought to have stopped the Minister of Transport himself.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I understand that the local authorities are not completely satisfied by this Clause, although they do not feel so strongly about it as about Clause 4. I have no doubt at all in my own mind that the hon. Members who put down this Amendment are not thinking so much about the interests of the local authorities. They are thinking about the interests of traders who will be affected by possible secret agreements. I want to tell hon. Members that I also am interested in this matter. After all, I am connected with one of the very largest users of the railways. We have not taken a hostile view of the whole question, because we are interested on the other side as well. We are not only users of the railways, but are interested in the financial side. We do feel some doubt about what the effect of secret agreements of this kind will be upon the traders. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) to say that the position in the country is that there is a whole network of secret agreements. What we are dealing with here is a statutory body who are entrusted with duties in respect of common carriage. Certain rates are fixed by the
Railway Rates Tribunal. In some cases, for what reason I do not want to say—it must be for good or bad reasons—those rates may be onerous to traders, and they find alternative means of carrying their merchandise and get more favourable terms. But it will be possible to have secret agreements between the alternative means of transport to which resort is at present made by traders and the railway companies who take powers under this Bill, and for such agreements not to be sufficiently public to the public who are the biggest users of the railways. I think that it would be a good thing if the railway companies would meet the traders in this matter, and I am not at all sure that the wording of either of these Amendments on the paper is very suitable. If the promoters of the Bill would consider the matter seriously and fix on a form of words and have them put in in another place, it would meet the point raised by the traders and would facilitate the passing of the Measure.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: With the permission of the House——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only speak by leave of the House.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I said by leave of the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite has misunderstood what I said. What I did was only to tell the House what was, as far as I understood it, the view of the Committee, and there I left it. The view of the Committee was that there would be no agreements made if any further particulars were to be given to the Minister, because it was a question of an agreement with a private omnibus company which could make any kind of agreement in business without any control of any kind, and it would not make an agreement with the railway company under the circumstances suggested.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In many cases that would be to the great advantage of the trader.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The Committee took the other view.

Sir R. HORNE: I think there is some misapprehension in the House about the effect of this whole matter. As we know, if you take private concerns, they make agreements constantly as matters of
business, and you do not suggest anything sinister about them by calling them secret agreements because they are not published to the world. Agreements of the nature suggested between a railway company and private individuals are no more to be labelled secret than are the transactions of the ordinary private business. Observe what goes on from day to day. Take the case of two 'bus companies, each working on a particular route. There is tin possible objection to the two companies making what agreement they choose and running in competition with other 'buses on these routes. For some reason or other there are Members of this Committee who seem to think that as soon as a railway company makes an agreement with a bus company there must be something sinister and thievish about it. From my point of view as a member of the public I can imagine that it was of the greatest possible benefit to the public that where there are existing 'bus services you do not want immediately a cut-throat competition between the railway and the 'buses with the result that someone is ruined. It is far better, in the interests of everyone, that an agreement should be possible between the railway company and the 'bus services, but from my own personal experience of ordinary business I am certain that you put a great impediment in the way of such agreements if you are to have every detail advertised to the public—the conditions under which a thing is bought, the price paid, and all the other materials. I am certain that many agreements would never be made at all under such conditions, and instead of the public being served, the result would be greatly to the detriment of the public service.
12 m.
But what have you got? It is true that the railway companies are statutory bodies. It is also true that if, instead of coming in this way to the House of Commons in order to get these powers in the ordinary way, they had chosen to go to the shareholders and to suggest the putting up of money for the formation of omnibus services, they would have been doing exactly what they propose to do in future, and this House would have had nothing to say about it. What is all the bother about? They have chosen, instead of taking that method, which would have put them entirely outside the
control of the House of Commons, to come to the House and ask for powers. You have had a very powerful Select Committee which has gone into the whole matter with meticulous care and has arrived at a certain number of devices for safeguarding the public interest. Those devices include, so far as any agreements are concerned, that the names connected with them shall be communicated to the Minister with a direct statement as to whether control is to be exercised by the railway company. The importance of that is this: that as soon as the railway companies exercise control the controlling body must immediately become subject to all the obligations of the railway company, with the publication of its fares and so on. What is the interest of the public in the actual terms upon which that company buys out the omnibus enterprise? Their only interest is in the fares. They are net interested in the price paid. The question is, are the fares to be charged larger than the public ought to pay in the circumstances? There will be complete control in that matter by the publication of the fares and the power that toe local authorities have to appeal to the Rates Tribunal against any fares which they regard as unjust or exorbitant. That is the whole of the public interest in the matter. I suggest that we are taking up much more time than is called for. This is really a very small matter in the actual working.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division.

THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER stated that he thought the Noes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Noes had it, three Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Amendment made: In page 8, leave out from the word "passengers" in line 7 to the end of the Clause, and insert the words:
Who on my one journey are both taken up and set down in the area consisting of
the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Inquiries by Minister.)

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 11, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
(2) The provisions of Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, shall apply to all inquiries held, or to be held, by the Minister under this Act as though such inquiries were held for the purposes of that Act.
We have heard a good deal about the safeguards in the Bill, more especially with regard to the inquiries which are to be made, and this Amendment, which I understand is accepted by the promoters, relates to the machinery of these inquiries.

Mr. WELLS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: We all want to make the inquiries that have to be made real, and this Amendment will secure that end.

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: On this Motion, I think it is as well Co express to the promoters of the Bill the very strong feeling that is held on this side in consequence of their action during the Report stage of this Bill. The promoters asked the Chair to accept the Closure upon a discussion of what we regarded as the most important Amendment down for debate on this Bill, and, as a consequence, they have left a very bad impression indeed upon the minds of hon. Members on these benches and of those in all parts of the House who speak for the local authorities. We had a very close and careful consultation with the representatives of the local authorities, who have millions and millions of pounds invested in their undertakings, just the same as the railways have; and we resent very much
that so highly controversial a matter as the proper protection of the interests of the local authorities should have been closured within the course of an hour and a half's debate at the instigation of one of the directors of the companies promoting the Bill. I want to say, in conclusion, that I do not wish to oppose the passage of the Bill, but I do want to see that fair play takes place in the debates in this House in regard to the protection of municipal interests; and I am bound to express, on behalf of my colleagues on this side, their grave concern at the way in which this question was closured.

Mr. MACKINDER: I wish to associate myself with the protest made by my hon. Friend. Hon. Members opposite seem to think we ought not to speak on these weighty matters which concern them, because when one Member of the official Opposition wanted to speak, at a moment when at least eight other Members on this side were desirous of expressing their views, an hon. and gallant Member opposite moved the Closure. The railway companies may be very important to him. I suppose they are, and I suppose he represents them very well in this House. I want to tell him that we on this side of the House have a very keen interest in municipal affairs. Some of us have seen our tramways losing money, and have put in work to regain what they have lost. They serve an important public service, and it is monstrous of Members on the other side of the House to use their great majority in this way. I was prepared to support the Railway Bills, and had expressed my desire to support them, largely on account of the men who are interested, but the action of hon. Members opposite is going to make me keep my eyes open very carefully in future on any Railway Bill that comes before the House. If they are going to be rushed through, they are not going to get our support. The municipal tramways are very dear to us. The most important Clause in the Bill was not adequately discussed, and no one can claim that it was adequately discussed, and it is really an abuse of the methods of this House and of the conduct of this House that the Closure should have been moved after so short a time.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have told the hon. Member several times that this is not a matter which can be discussed.

Mr. MACKINDER: I understood at the beginning of the proceedings that, in order to facilitate the business, Clause 4 and the Amendments thereon should be discussed as one. My point is that they were not discussed, and when Mr. Speaker came to an agreement with the House, I thought that the House would keep their side of the agreement, and let Clause 4 be discussed. I challenge anybody to say that the Clause was discussed. It was not, and hon. Members opposite did not keep their share of the agreement. I feel indignant about it; it is not an assumption of indignation, and I say that if hon. Members will do this kind of thing on a Bill of this sort, it does not do them credit, and it does not do credit to the House. The business was too important to be rushed through like that.

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not really think that it is my business to say anything——

Mr. MACKINDER: Then why say it?

Colonel ASHLEY: —but I should not like the discussion on this important Bill to pass with any note of discord. I can assure hon. Members opposite that it was not intended unduly to cut short the discussion——[Interruption].

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Do I understand from this explanation that the Minister of Transport was a party to the moving of the Closure?

Colonel ASHLEY: I was not a party to the moving, but I voted for it. I would point out to hon. Members that the discussion on this particular question lasted an hour and a half, and we were in the position of having a great many pages of Amendments before us, and nobody knew how long the discussions were going to take. We did it with no idea of trying to cripple discussion.

Mr. THOMAS: I would deplore as much as anybody that the Third Reading of this Bill, with all its consequences, should wind up in a bad spirit, but I am bound to say, and I would be deceiving the House if I did not say, that no one was more astonished than I was when the Closure was moved, and I showed my feelings by going into the Lobby against it. It would have been much better if
the Closure motion had come from the Government. No one disguises the importance of the Bill and the need of adequate discussion, and I hope that my hon. Friends will take this assurance that I have been in all the negotiations on this matter with those who have been promoting the Bill, and nobody who was a promoter or supporter of the Bill intended or made arrangements or in any way had made provision for the Closure to be moved. It is only fair that the House should know that Indeed, the best answer I can give in that my own view is that the House would have sat until well on into the morning. I know how things are said in the heat and passion of temper——

Mr. JOHN: And for the sake of interests.

Mr. THOMAS: If there is to be talk of interests, I am as interested as anyone else.

Mr. MACKINDER: We did not refer to you.

Mr. THOMAS: I feel honestly that it was due to a bit of temper, such as may naturally be shown, and I can only say that I regret it, that I hope it will be forgotten by all who have worked for this Bill, believing it to be a good Measure, believing that the right thing has been done and believing that the community will not suffer through it. I hope the closure incident will not rankle in the minds of any one or engender a feeling of bitterness, or give rise to the idea that a trap was set or that what happened was done with a deliberate intention.

Mr. LAMB: I do not wish to say anything on the subject referred to by the last speaker, but as the mover of the rejection of the Bill when it came up for Second Beading I should like to say that neither I nor those who acted with me on that occasion opposed the Bill as I stated at the time out of any animosity or ill will towards the railway companies. What we wanted was an opportunity for reasonable improvements to be made in a measure of this importance. I regret very much that the Amendments which were put down in good faith have not been accepted not one of them—and we are disappointed that we have not been met in what I may term a rather more
generous spirit by the promoters of the Bill. However, I would not like to end on that note. I would rather say that although we have not been successful I hope we may rely upon the promoters of the Bill to see that the rights and interests of traders generally are respected up to the hilt. We have not obtained what we regard as necessary Amendments and therefore I hope the Companies will voluntarily show some regard to other interests while operating these Bills.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL [By Order].

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision and use of road vehicles.)

Amendment made:

In page 2, line 20, leave out from the word "Act," in line 20, to the end of the Clause, and insert the words:
convey by any road vehicle any passenger who on any one journey is both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

CLAUSE 4.—(For protection of transport services of local authority in own area.)

Amendments made:

In page 2, line 28, leave out the words "each constituent authority being deemed (a) to be the local authority of its own area," and insert instead thereof the words:
such joint board being deemed (a) to be the local authority of a local area consisting of the local areas of the constituent authorities of the Board."—[Mr. C. Edwards.]

In page 3, line 28, at the end, insert the words:
(5) Where a local area will be altered by virtue of an Act passed in the present session the alteration shall, for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to have been made before the passing of this Act"—[Major Glyn.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Working agreements, etc.)

Amendment made:

In page 8, leave Out from the word "passengers," in line 9, to the end of the
Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:
who on any one journey are both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Inquiries by Minister.)

Amendment made:

In page 10, line 19, at the end, insert the words:
(2) The provisions of Section twenty of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, shall apply to all inquiries held or to be held by the Minister under this Act as though such inquiries were held for the purposes of that Act."—[Major Glyn.]

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended and that the Bill be now rend the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LONDON AND NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL [By Order].

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision and use of road vehicles.)

Amendment made:

In page 2, leave out from the word "Act," in line 20, to the end of the Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:
convey by any road vehicle any passenger who on any one journey is both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

CLAUSE 4.—(For protection of transport services of local authority in own area.)

Amendments made:

In page 2, leave out from the second word "Act," in line 27, to the word "in," in line 29, and insert instead thereof the words:
such joint board being deemed (a) to be the local authority of a local area consisting of the local areas of the constituent authorities of the board."—[Mr. C. Edwards.]

In page 3, line 28, at the end, insert the words:
(5) Where a local area will be altered by virtue of an Act passed in the present
Session the alteration shall for the purposes of this Section be deemed to have been made before the passing of this Act."—[Mr. C. Edwards.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Working Agreements, etc.)

Amendment made:

In page 8, leave out from the word "passengers," in line 12, to the end of the Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:
who on any one journey are both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Inquiries by Minister.)

Amendment made:

In page 11, line 9, at the end, insert the words:
(2) The provisions of Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, shall apply to all inquiries held, or to be held, by the Minister under this Act as though such inquiries were held for the purposes of that Act."—[Major Glyn.]

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL. (By Order.)

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision and use of road vehicles.)

Amendment made:

In page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21, and insert instead thereof the words:
convey by any road vehicle any passenger who on any one journey is both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

CLAUSE 4.—(For protection of transport services of local authority in own area.)

Amendments made:

In page 2, leave out from the word Act, in line 26, to the word "in" in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words:
such joint board being deemed (a) to be the local authority of a local area consisting of the local areas of the constituent authorities of the board."[Mr. C. Edwards.]

In page 3, line 28, at the end, insert the words:
(5) Where a local area will be altered by virtue of an Act passed in the present Session, the alteration shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been made before the passing of this Act."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Working agreements, etc.)

Amendment made:

In page 7, leave out from the word "passengers," in line 39, to the end of the Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:
who on any one journey are both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London."—[Sir H. Jackson.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Inquiries by Minister.)

Amendment made:

In page 10, line 3, at the end, add the words:
(2) The provisions of Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, shall apply to all inquiries held or to be held by the Minister under this Act as though such inquiries were held for the purposes of that Act."—[Captain Briscoe.]

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,314,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones.

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.

Resolved,
That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1928 be approved."—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Twelve o'clock.